Monday, October 03, 2011

Strange Bedfellows?

Paul Manata offers an interesting assessment of the “transcendental argument for God” (TAG).
In a blog post of his titled Do All Men Know That God Exists? Manata writes:
TAG, as I understand it, is something like the Osama Bin Laden of apologetic arguments. It’s been bombarded with rockets and is hiding out in the caves, licking its wounds.
Would someone please tell Sye Ten Bruggencate? If I try to, he’ll probably accuse me of indigestion or dysentery (when in fact, I’m quite healthy).
by Dawson Bethrick

Labels: ,

481 Comments:

Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

believe me, I've tried to tell Sye and I've tried to get him to confront you and "throw down the gauntlet" many times on the youtube channels that he frequents...but he does what presup. apologists are known best for, and that is, as we all know - to EVADE any meaningful dialogue at all costs.

October 03, 2011 6:23 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

When I click on the link, I keep getting a 404 error. I was able to access the material through a search via Google, though. Is anyone else experiencing this problem when clicking on the link?

Ydemoc

October 03, 2011 8:56 AM  
Blogger Nide Corniell said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 03, 2011 12:29 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

One by the name of "Christopher Johnston" seems not to be happy with the way I been devastating the "Bahnsen Burner" blog. He felt the need to send me an email. His message is somewhat ambiguous. So, I am not really sure what he is trying to say. Anyway, if you know this fellow tell him when he is ready to present an argument to email me. I would love to interact with it.



P.S. Tell Dawson.

October 03, 2011 12:30 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "One by the name of "Christopher Johnston" seems not to be happy with the way I been devastating the "Bahnsen Burner" blog."

You haven't been "devastating" anyone or anything except your own mind.

Trinity wrote: "He felt the need to send me an email. His message is somewhat ambiguous. So, I am not really sure what he is trying to say."

Pot calling the kettle...

Trinity wrote: "Anyway, if you know this fellow tell him when he is ready to present an argument to email me."

What, no "please" in your request? Just a direct order from on high? Eh, it's all moot anyway, because I do not know this person.

"I would love to interact with it."

You would "God" to interact with it?

Trinity wrote: "P.S. Tell Dawson."

Another direct order from the authoritarian mindset? Why would I have to tell Dawson? Didn't you just do that, since he reads these comments?

Ydemoc

October 03, 2011 1:30 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc said: "You would "God" to interact with it?"


I am extremely busy right now and don't have the time to deal with your gimmicks.

You can always go back and review my comments those will help.



Blessings


P.S. Ever watch the Ghost Busters?

October 03, 2011 3:04 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Ydemoc: "When I click on the link, I keep getting a 404 error."

Hello Ydemoc. Sorry about that! I forgot to edit the link when I posted this entry. For reasons that escape me, Blogger always inserts its own domain into active hypertext strings when creating a blog. It's a real nuisance as each link needs to be manually edited in order to work.

It should work now. Thanks for letting me know!

Regards,
Dawson

October 03, 2011 3:22 PM  
Blogger Tom said...

Hi Dawson,

I've listened to a few of Sye's debates and a question I've heard him ask several opponents is:
"Would it be possible for an all knowing, all powerful being to reveal things to us such that we can know them for certain?

An example would be revealing to us the fact that he exists."

Just wondering how you would approach such a question because it seems to catch his opponents off guard.

Thanks for your writings

October 03, 2011 3:29 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

The link is indeed working now. Thanks!

Ydemoc

October 03, 2011 4:31 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Hello Tom,

You wrote: “I've listened to a few of Sye's debates and a question I've heard him ask several opponents is: ‘Would it be possible for an all knowing, all powerful being to reveal things to us such that we can know them for certain? An example would be revealing to us the fact that he exists.’ Just wondering how you would approach such a question because it seems to catch his opponents off guard.”

Good question. I’ve seen similar questions posed by Sye and other presuppositionalists as well. It’s curious why anyone would be stumped by this, but that’s a discussion all its own.

In response to such questions, I would approach the matter objectively – specifically from the recognition that reality and imagination are fundamentally distinct, that the imaginary is not real. This is non-negotiable, and in fact I would make it explicit and ask the presuppositionalist if he is willing to acknowledge the fundamental distinction between reality and imagination. Most likely, the presupper is going to evade making any clear commitment on the matter, and instead challenge the non-theist affirming this distinction to “account for” it, in which case I would simply cite the primacy of existence, a principle to which his worldview has no consistent philosophical access.

Given the fact that there actually is a distinction between what is real and what is merely imaginary, and given the fact that the imaginary is not real, I would point out that in the context of one’s imagination, an imaginary being is capable of doing whatever its imaginer imagines it being capable of doing. A supernatural being which one conjures in his imagination, for instance, can do whatever he imagines it can do. What can stop a person from imagining a supernatural being’s super-capabilities?

Since the Christian god is imaginary, the Christian god can do whatever the Christian believer imagines it can do, in the realm of his imagination.

For example, Sye can imagine that his god can “reveal” itself to whomever he imagines it wants to, such that whoever has been so revealed to can be “certain” that it is real. Unfortunately for the believer, however, the whole scenario remains confined to the believer’s imagination. His goal is not to prove that his god is real (indeed, many presuppers admit that they can’t do this, and even say they won’t try to), but to get you to ignore the distinction between the real and the imaginary, just as he has. That’s the true purpose of such questions as you ask about.

I would confirm the point with a test case: Blarko the WonderBeing. I can imagine Blarko the WonderBeing, and I can imagine it being capable of doing all sorts of things, including “revealing” itself to us such that we can be “certain” that it is real. In the context of the imagination, Blarko the WonderBeing – an admitted concoction of the imagination – can do whatever one imagines it can do.

Note also that even if one has no considered answer to Sye’s question, or even concedes that such is possible, the matter continues to remain in the imagination: we still have no alternative but to imagine the god that Sye tells us is real, and we still have no alternative but to imagine it revealing it to us in some manner or other. The nature of an imaginary being cannot outrun its imaginary nature. Once one grasps this, all the gimmicks of presuppositionalism will become conspicuously apparent, for that’s all that’s left.

Does that help?

Regards,
Dawson

October 03, 2011 4:33 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Tom,

If your struggling with Sye T's question maybe you should consider another avenue it gets worst for the "atheist". Your having trouble with the basics. I hate to tell you this Tom but your probably not gonna make it in the "debate" world.

Tom maybe I'm wrong but here's a question:

Is love an object?

October 03, 2011 9:32 PM  
Blogger Tom said...

Thanks Dawson.

Hezekiah Ahaz,
You are reading quite a bit into my question to Dawson. I never said I personally was "struggling" with the question or trying to "make it in the debate world". I don't even know what that means. I simply wanted to know how Dawson would approach the question. I have my own thoughts of course.

Tom maybe I'm wrong but here's a question:

Is love an object?


You are not wrong -- that is a question. The answer is:
No, love is an emotion.

Glad to be of help to you.

October 04, 2011 3:31 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Tom,

For the record, I did not get the impression that you were “struggling” with the question you inquired about, but rather that you were simply curious as to how I would respond to it (or “approach” it, as you stated). That others have been caught off guard by it does not imply that you have been also. Nor does simply asking for my input on a certain question suggest that you’re “having trouble with the basics.” It’s hard to see how someone could draw this assessment based merely on the inquiry that you submitted. As for “making it” in the “debate world,” I hope I don’t have to tell you that there are much greater things than this to aspire to in life.

All:

A reader of my blog sent me a link to this video on YouTube. It was added not two months ago and already there are over 4,000 comments. The author makes some interesting points and I was curious what thoughts anyone might have in reaction to it.

Regards,
Dawson

October 04, 2011 3:38 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Tom wrote: “Thanks Dawson.”

You’re welcome! I enjoyed the opportunity to address another of Sye’s tactics.

Any thoughts in response to what I wrote in reply to your query?

In response to Nide's comment, Tom wrote: “You are reading quite a bit into my question to Dawson.”

Just a word of caution, Tom: If you choose to carry on a conversation with Nide (aka “Hezekiah Ahaz,” “r_c321,” “Trinity”), get used to this. In fact, “reading quite a bit” into anything you state is something of an understatement.

Tom: “I never said I personally was ‘struggling’ with the question”

Indeed, I saw no indication that you personally were struggling with it. I’m wondering how anyone would get this impression from what you wrote.

Tom: “or trying to ‘make it in the debate world’.”

Indeed, I’ve never even seen you debate, so where did that come from? Bizarre.

Tom: “I simply wanted to know how Dawson would approach the question.”

That’s what I took from your inquiry.

Nide asked: “Tom maybe I'm wrong but here's a question: Is love an object?”

Tom: “You are not wrong -- that is a question. The answer is: No, love is an emotion.”

It’s important to be clear about what the concept ‘object’ is understood to mean here. By ‘object’ I most often mean, in the context of such discussions, anything that one perceives and/or considers, which is broad enough to include any emotion, including love. If I am discussing the nature of love, for instance, then love is the *object* of my attention.

Does that help?

Regards,
Dawson

October 04, 2011 3:55 AM  
Blogger Tom said...

Hi Dawson,

The first time I heard this argument from Sye I was reminded of Carl Sagan's chapter from The Demon Haunted World in which he discusses the invisible dragon in his garage. The text can be found here for anyone who is interested:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

This seems to me to be identical to the proposition that Sye attempts to get his opponents to affirm. Since his opponents cannot disprove the possibility that this figment of his imagination exists, Sye makes the jump that it is therefore possible for such a being to exist. Sagan's eloquent response to this is:

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.

Thanks for the warning about Nide along with his various pseudonyms. I admit that I normally do not follow the large comment threads here so I am not familiar with him.

It’s important to be clear about what the concept ‘object’ is understood to mean here. By ‘object’ I most often mean, in the context of such discussions, anything that one perceives and/or considers, which is broad enough to include any emotion, including love. If I am discussing the nature of love, for instance, then love is the *object* of my attention.

I agree given your definition of 'object'.

October 04, 2011 4:56 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dawson,

Thanks for destroying Tom's mind.

October 04, 2011 9:17 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

Thanks for the link to the YouTube video.

While watching, I was reminded of my belief in Santa Claus. I can remember lying in bed on Christmas Eve and, with great anticipation, looking through my bedroom window at the stars in the sky and *imagining* Santa flying around up there in his sled.

I also remember getting frustrated at other kids who told me there was no Santa Claus. How could they reject my belief in Santa!?! Didn't I get gifts from him that said, "From Santa"? Didn't my parents tell me he was real? Didn't I visit him at the department store? Didn't I wake up in the morning and see the cookie gone and milk glass empty?

Perhaps the parallel (in the context of what the YouTube video presents) of my Santa Claus belief and a Christian's belief in god, is that I believed what others had told me, and had made such an "emotional investment" in my belief, that when other kids told me Santa did not exist, I got frustrated because they were actually rejecting me.

(Of course, at that young of age I wasn't able to put it into these terms, but looking back on it, that seems to be what was happening.)

And somewhat relative to the video, here's a link to something I posted before: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/

And here's the lead: "For many religious people, the popular question “ What would Jesus do?” is essentially the same as “What would I do?” That’s the message from an intriguing and controversial new study by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago. Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs."

Anyways, thanks again for the video, Dawson. It made me think of another descriptor for believers in Christianity: Agents for the Imaginary.

Ydemoc

October 04, 2011 10:44 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

Here's a little more from the article I linked to:

"Epley’s results are sure to spark controversy, but their most important lesson is that relying on a deity to guide one’s decisions and judgments is little more than spiritual sockpuppetry. To quote Epley himself:

'People may use religious agents as a moral compass, forming impressions and making decisions based on what they presume God as the ultimate moral authority would believe or want. The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing. This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God’s beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing.'

Ydemoc

October 04, 2011 10:57 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dawson,

Thanks for also destroying Ydemoc and AJ's mind.

October 04, 2011 11:01 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

Here's another video for your enjoyment.

"Atheists...What if you're wrong??"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqz0plz6DEs&feature=player_embedded

Ydemoc

October 04, 2011 11:14 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

As an Agent for the Imaginary, does it ever bother you that instead of making 10% by promoting your "Client in the Sky" that you are actually required to pay 10% -- and not even to your "Client in the Sky," but to other Agents for the Imaginary?

Ydemoc

October 04, 2011 11:21 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

Man I feel left out, didn't my mind get destroyed as well! Why do Ydemoc and AJ get to have all the fun. :)

October 04, 2011 12:47 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin thanks for reminding me.

Dawson,

thanks for destroying Justin's mind.

October 04, 2011 1:26 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

You think Christians have a good imagination. Well, you never met a Scientist.

Here is a film that will keep you entertained for a bit.

I thought I was watching a disney movie.

I call this film "The movie universe of atheism"

Here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiEqcQtxuDs&feature=channel_video_title



P.S. Tell Dawson

October 05, 2011 3:31 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "You think Christians have a good imagination."

Actually, I don't know if I've ever characterized believers' imagination as "good" in the sense that for imagination to qualify as "good," it would have to (as Dawson has pointed out) make use of the "ability to rearrange mentally what one has observed in reality," in order to "aid in the achievement and preservation of human values." Now, Walt Disney, Steve Jobs, The Wright Brothers, the Founding Fathers, and many others -- these men had what I would call "good" imaginations: They dared to dream with their minds anchored firmly in reality.

Trinity wrote: "Well, you never met a Scientist."

It's a good thing this is just rhetoric on your part, otherwise I might be uncharitable and ask: How do you know I've never met a "Scientist." Do you just know because you know, and make such knowledge claims based on faith?

Trinity wrote: "Here is a film that will keep you entertained for a bit."

I'm glad you didn't send me a link to something that wasn't entertaining. Entertainment can aid in the learning process.

Trinity wrote: "I thought I was watching a disney movie."

This kind of confusion is inevitable when one fails to distinguish that which is real from that which is imaginary. Now, had this show presented a talking donkey, like "Shrek," then I might agree with you.

Trinity wrote: "I call this film "'The movie universe of atheism'"

Okay. Call it what you'd like, but that won't change the fact that this PBS series is called "Evolution."

Trinity wrote: "Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiEqcQtxuDs&feature=channel_video_title"

Thanks. And thanks for providing the link to any fence-sitters that may be looking on.

Ydemoc

October 05, 2011 8:04 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

Thanks for the fantastic video on evolution Hez. I'm surprised you promoted that for all the traffic this blog gets but it was a great watch and will serve to educate those who are in the dark or are eager to learn about the facts of evolution.

Very entertaining movie about BRUTE FACT that is supported by the fossil record.

Very Nice.

October 05, 2011 8:31 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 05, 2011 9:02 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

AJ,

Thanks. Just wanted to show you, AJ, the imaginative nature of atheism. I really enjoyed the claim that whales evolved from a "wolf" like creature. It's pretty hilarious. Like watching a movie. AJ, You know that movies aren't real right?

AJ you should try it sometime to see if it is really true. Go live in water and see if you turn into the little mermaid.

AJ did you read my post from last week I quoted from a story book in which they explained the scientific method?


Maybe you feel asleep during the film but if you payed any attention to the language you would see some of it was guesswork.

Of course I could also imagine that Elephants were once mice and Dogs were fish.


Ydemoc,

You seem a little upset at my analogy "the movie universe of atheism" it's pretty hilarious.

October 05, 2011 9:06 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "You seem a little upset at my analogy "the movie universe of atheism" it's pretty hilarious."

Upset? Not at all. You misinterpreted my response. I was simply making a point about reality, and the fact that when you choose to call something other than what it is, this does not make it whatever it is you chose to call it. For example, you call the bible "The Word of God"; and the bible calls itself the same; but that doesn't make the bible anything more than just stories concocted by imaginative mystics.

On the other hand, evolution has yet to be proven wrong. The same cannot be said for the bible.

Ydemoc

October 05, 2011 9:22 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

Sink your wisdom teeth into this:

"Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature. Many of them don't have much to do with evolution - they're observations about the details of physiology, biochemistry, development, and so on - but many of them do. And every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect, supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible observations that could prove evolution untrue, we don't have a single one. We don't find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that only benefit a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific truth." - (Jerry Coyne, from the book "Why Evolution Is True")

Ydemoc

October 05, 2011 9:37 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

I too found the program on evolution to be interesting. I also note Nide's use of the straw man fallacy when he commented to AJ about trying living in water which implied that evolution concludes that a wolf like ancestor to whales made the transition in a single generation. This kind of gross miss characterization of evolution only once again confirms for me that Nide truly does not have a clue about what he is talking about.

October 05, 2011 9:52 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You wrote: "This kind of gross miss characterization of evolution only once again confirms for me that Nide truly does not have a clue about what he is talking about."

Trinity is someone that is fighting tooth and nail to defend what his storybook and others have told him he should believe. And this "cluelessness" will continue as long as he remains a "Guardian and Agent for the Imaginary." He might as well walk around, wearing a t-shirt that reads: "Reality Be Damned."

Ydemoc

October 05, 2011 10:05 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

You should also try it and see if you turn into Jaws that would really be amazing.

It's like a movie Justin I could imagine anything you know like movie directors do.

I could also imagine our ancestors "swinging from trees" and a horse evolving from a "dog" like creature.

Ydemoc,

Remember the westminster confession "God controls
whatsoever comes to pass"?

October 05, 2011 10:40 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

I accuse you of committing a straw man argument and with this statement...

"You should also try it and see if you turn into Jaws that would really be amazing."

...You commit yet again the very same strawman. The theory of evolution does not state that an individual can change from one species to another... period. If you are going to argue against something the least you could do is actually know and understand what it is that you are arguing against. What a clueless dolt.

October 06, 2011 6:01 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Straw men are something you find in movies. See why the analogy fits remember the wizard of oz?

It's interesting that everytime I imagine our ancestors "swinging from trees" I think about planet of the apes which is really interesting because planet of the apes is a movie.

I am wondering if Dawson went and lived in trees if he would overtime evolve into an "ape" like creature.

It would be really amazing to watch or Ydemoc if he went and lived in a cave if he would evolve into a bear.


Justin I'll be posting more movies for you soon.

October 06, 2011 6:24 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin and AJ:

Here is another movie for you I know you will enjoy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKUWli76KRc

October 06, 2011 10:36 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB,

http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/1222/?utm_source=Subscribers&utm_campaign=5ddfb6fc21-Spotlight_10_06_1110_6_2011&utm_medium=email


Enjoy

October 06, 2011 11:10 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

And here are a couple videos for you. The first from Ken Miller, a theist (Roman Catholic to be precise), and a biology professor at Brown University. It's a little over 4 minutes long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&feature=related

The second is an 8 minute video that explains what you seem not to understand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c&feature=related

And just as the video presents and has been stated by others: The Scientific Method says, "Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them."

Whereas the Creationist Method says, "Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it."

Ydemoc

October 06, 2011 11:55 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 06, 2011 12:03 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

"Whereas the Creationist Method says, "Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it."

This relates directly to my question to Nide that he has refused to answer. Here it is once more

Nide, how should I as a christian treat new information that contradicts the statements made by the bible? Note I am not asking you weather you believe in the bible or gremlins or whatever. I am asking you what "I" should do concerning information "if" I were a Christan. Basically it boils down to should I let the facts lead me where they may (an objective reality) or should I try to shoe horn / distort or plain just ignore information that does not agree with my a priori conclusions?

October 06, 2011 12:07 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

I wonder if Trinity is a flat-earther?
If he's not, I wonder why not, given bible passages that support this notion, and how, at one time, those who proposed otherwise were treated as heretics by bible believers.

Ydemoc

October 06, 2011 12:14 PM  
Blogger pattern recognition said...

So Eric Hovind is now a presuppositionalist? Arent presuppositionalist supposed to reject "evidentialism" and creationists claim to have evidence?

I suppose he thinks its easier to say "logic wouldnt exist without god" etc then spout 30 creationist falsities from his dad that sceptics have already heard over and over.

October 06, 2011 12:41 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

PR,

Here is a link it will help you catch up on your studies:

http://www.cmfnow.com/vantilspresuppositionalapologetic-1.aspx

Ydemoc,

Enjoy the little mermaid?

I know exactly what I am talking about. I have my story book right here with me. It's the same one I qouted from last week.

Here is a link where you can get it:

http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Physical-Anthropology-Discovering-Origins/dp/0393934225/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2


See the cover it's exaclty like a movie?


Justin,

Can you provide the "new information" that you keep raving about.



The "Bahnsen Burner" went out of business a long time ago. And now with Sye's new CD the icing has finally been put on the cake.



Ydemoc what's a flat-earther?

October 06, 2011 1:43 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide
"Can you provide the "new information" that you keep raving about."

the question was not about the evidence. The question was how one should treat such evidence if and when it is found. This is a question about how one thinks, not what one is thinking about. Man you will never answer this will you, the great evader.

October 06, 2011 2:03 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

It will never be found. So, your question is invalid.

October 06, 2011 2:16 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "...what's a flat-earther?"

It is someone who denies evidence and maintains that the earth is flat. However, modern day flat-earthers don't have an excuse like those who wrote the bible did. Those who wrote the bible didn't know any better, so they put down in scripture several passages indicating that the world was flat, and that the sun moved around the earth. Today, thanks to men (and women) who dared to question such dogma and go where the evidence leads, we can see how wrong these mystics were. Do you not believe what scripture says about the world being flat and the sun revolving around the earth? If you don't believe that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, what is it that you are relying upon to come to this conclusion -- a conclusion that disagrees with scripture?

Ydemoc

October 06, 2011 2:21 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

Just a little more about the sun moving around a stable earth. (From
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml)

***********

The stability of the earth

On the other side of the geocentric coin, if the sun moves then the earth must not move. There are a few passages which more-or-less forbid the motion of the earth.

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."

****end quote****

And these passages from scripture are just the tip of the iceberg.

Boy, am I sure glad I'm not confessionally invested in such nonsense.

Ydemoc

October 06, 2011 2:34 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide
"It will never be found. So, your question is invalid."

So bats are birds and the number pi is equal to exactly 3? If I had asked what if you found a square circle the charge of an invalid question would have had merit. However there is no logical principle that you can rely on to rule out of question prior to any investigation that the bible can be in error. You continue to evade the question. It is a valid counter factual and your answer tells me a lot. Namely you lack any objectivity. You have no error correction mechanism and you are not honest enough with yourself and others to even want one. Nide what you have said is in effect Christianity is not falsifiable. Claims that are accepted arbitrarily and be just a easily rejected arbitrarily. After your last statement why do you expect me to trust you? and as a matter of fact I do not.

October 06, 2011 2:58 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Just a couple other relevant tidbits from the website I cited above:

*****

* Truth Cannot Contradict Truth. Roman Catholic Church. Pope John-Paul II.
"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

* Essential Questions -- Christianity and Lutheranism. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).
"The New Testament is the first-hand proclamation of those who lived through the events of Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection. As such, it is the authority for Christian faith and practice. The Bible is thus not a definitive record of history or science. Rather, it is the record of the drama of God's saving care for creation throughout the course of history.... Lutherans believe that God is Creator of the universe. Its dimensions of space and time are not something God made once and then left alone. God is, rather, continually creating, calling into being each moment of each day."

****** end quotes*****

Christians disagreeing with Christians: Whoduh thunk it?

Ydemoc

October 06, 2011 3:19 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Brace yourself for a no true scotsman...

October 06, 2011 3:23 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You wrote: "Brace yourself for a no true scotsman..."

Welp, if he resorts to this, it is going to be quite a claim, since about 33% of the world's population call themselves Christian, and about 17% of those are Catholics. That's a lot of Christians to dismiss as "not true Christians."

Or maybe he would just say it about the Pope.

Ydemoc

October 06, 2011 3:58 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

It's been really hilarious.

I've never fell of the earth so it must be not flat.

Justin,

asked: "So bats are birds and the number pi is equal to exactly 3"


Justin try it out go live with the birds and see what happen.

Maybe you will grow wings and fly. Just like a movie.


Ydemoc Jesus accepted creation that settles it for me.


What happened to Dawson he hasn't said hi.

October 06, 2011 8:18 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

Leviticus 11.13-19 You must not eat any of the following birds: eagles, owls, hawks, falcons; buzzards, vultures, crows; ostriches; seagulls, storks, herons, pelicans, cormorants;[a] hoopoes; or bats.

or bats.....

your own bible is what says bats are birds

however bats are mammals.

Kings 7:23

Then he made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference

your own bible says pi is 3

however a careful measure of the circumferences of a circle shows pi is 3.1415. Actually an irrational number never ending or repeating.

so here we have two insistences of where I have information counter to what the bible says, what should I do?

But wait there is more

Leviticus 11.6

uh rabbits do not chew cud

or Leviticus 11.20-23

insects have 6 legs not 4

Nide what am I to do, this contradicts the bible, oh what am I to do......

help!

October 06, 2011 9:04 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

I used the examples from Leviticus but honestly I can think of much better. It is just clear as day to me that you have not a clue about geology, biology, astronomy and anything about the sciences. I however know quit a bit and collectively it contradicts the bible. I trust it more however as I understand the method by which it was acquired. Do you understand that the scientific method its self is more important epistemologically speaking then the actual answers we get from it.

October 06, 2011 9:09 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Sense we are on the topic of movies, I wounder have you ever seen the movie Monty Python's In Search of the Holy Grail. If you have do you remember the black night. Does he remind you of anyone we know :)

October 06, 2011 9:16 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You wrote: "Sense we are on the topic of movies, I wounder have you ever seen the movie Monty Python's In Search of the Holy Grail. If you have do you remember the black night. Does he remind you of anyone we know :)"

You know what? I used to really enjoy Monty Python -- John Cleese, Graham Chapman, Eric Idlle, etc., and I did see that movie, but it's been a long time. I used to watch Monty Python's Flying Circus on television -- PBS I believe. I used to get a kick out of that show.

Is "In Search of the Holy Grail" the one where they cut off some guy's arm, and then another arm, and then a leg, and then another leg? I found that funny. (in the context of the movie, of course)

I still haven't seen "Life of Brian," which I've been meaning to see.

Ydemoc

October 06, 2011 9:46 PM  
Blogger Cafeeine Addicted said...

"That's a lot of Christians to dismiss as "not true Christians."

I've found that, unless they are trying to justify passing overarching legislation to favor specific religious dogmas and need to present Christianity as defacto in society, many Christians have no problem with the position that the vast majority of nominal Christians are not true believers and may be hellbound. Indeed it helps feed the persecution complex when they consider themselves as an extreme minority against a sinful world.

I've had conversations with some Christians where I was accused of atheists both being statistically insignificant and being in control of the global society suppressing Christians, in the same paragraph.

October 07, 2011 4:17 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

God can't lie so your "contradictions" are in invalid.

CA,

I have been called worst see here:

http://paulsapologetic.blogspot.com/2011/08/considering-atheisms-offerings.html

October 07, 2011 6:52 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

Leviticus 11.20-23 clearly states that insects have 4 legs. Yet all know species have 6. That is clearly a contradictions. You respond with....

"God can't lie so your "contradictions" are in invalid."

...and you call us delusional :)

October 07, 2011 7:44 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide
I really like Kings 7.23. In 1896 Indiana and in 1927 Kansas both tried to pass laws mandating that pi is equal to 3. I'll never buy ball bearing made in either state:) 3.0 does not equal 3.14159.... I think even you would agree. Kings 7.23 says the circumference of was 30 and the diameter was 10. Divide those and you get 3 not 3.14159.... That the bible says does not match the reality I can interact with. Should I reject this, should I like you bury my head in the sand and say these contradictions don't exist? or should I use my mind, reason for myself and come to my own conclusions?

October 07, 2011 7:50 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

what is he going to do.... bleed on me:)

October 07, 2011 7:54 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

I had written: "If you don't believe that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, what is it that you are relying upon to come to this conclusion -- a conclusion that disagrees with scripture?"

Trinity responds: "I've never fell [sic] of [sic] the earth so it must be not flat."

Is this the only evidence you have that has led you to the conclusion that the earth isn't flat? By the fact that you haven't fallen off? How does your not falling off preclude the earth from being flat, as mystics of scripture thought it was?

The mystics who wrote scripture didn't fall off the earth either, yet they thought the earth *was* flat. Why do you think they didn't come to the same conclusion as you did? Why do you suppose they didn't say to themselves, "Gee, I haven't fallen off the earth, so it must not have corners and an edge for me to fall off of, so I better not put down in writing that it does have corners and an edge"?

Were the mystics of scripture wrong when they posited a flat earth?

Trinity wrote: "Jesus accepted creation that settles it for me."

Does this mean Jesus accepted a flat earth, and that you agree with him? Yet above you've come to the conclusion that the earth wasn't flat. Interesting.

Your whole approach is: "Reality Be Damned," and "My Own Experience Be Damned" and "My Own Conclusions Be Damned" and "Science Be Damned" if any of it conflicts with what my storybook says, because my storybook says my storybook can't lie.

Do I have it about right?

Ydemoc

October 07, 2011 8:10 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

It's been said before in different ways, but it needs to be said again for those who may be looking on: You have put on display for all to see, what happens to a person who substitutes a storybook in place of truth: The end result is the negation of your mind.

Ydemoc

October 07, 2011 8:21 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Can you provide the flat-earth verses so I can examine them?

Justin,

Not sure what PI has to do with kings but if you want to give an explanation I would appreciate it. I would love to give a response.

October 07, 2011 9:07 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Kings 7.23
I Kings 7.23: He made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and the height of it was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits compassed it round about.
30 cubits compassed it ROUND about. that is 3 times the the ten cubits from brim to brim. The passage should have said 31.4 cubits around as that would be much closer to the actual value of pi. Simple math that the bible failed at. One could say that they were just primitives that didn't know pi that accurately. However the Greeks at the time already knew its value as 3.16 and this is supposed to be the infallible word of god. If they were just ignorant primitives what else did they get wrong? Do you really want to open that can of worms? However once again you avoid the actual issue here. Both Ydemoc and myself have continued to come back to the core issue. What comes first, your story book or reality? In principle your story book could be correct but that misses the issue altogether. What is more important, what the book says or what we discover thru the use of reason. You are either a seeker of truth or a conformist. A seeker uses his/her mind to discover the truth by studying reality. A conformist chooses his paradigm, in your case the bible and filtering everything through it and rejects facts of reality that don't conform. This would be the central issue even if neither Ydemoc or myself could find any factual errors in the bible.

By the way, here is an example of intellectual honesty. Early I quoted Leviticus stating that bats were a kind of bird which clearly is in error. It turns out the ancient Hebrew word that was translated into English as bird actually in Hebrew meant any flying animal. Would we see this kind of error correction from you? I kind of doubt it.

October 07, 2011 9:32 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Can you provide the flat-earth verses so I can examine them?"

Why "on earth" would you need to examine verses that you have already predetermined are not in error?

In any event, here they are, along with commentary. This comes from the website http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml#earthflat

*******

The shape of the earth

In any case, the earth is not spherical. According to the Scriptures, from a very high spot (heaven, for example) one could see the entire earth such that nothing would be hidden. Such a thing is not possible with a spherical earth as the opposite side can't be seen directly. This implies that the earth is flat.

Job 28:24
For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens.

Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.

Daniel 4:10-11
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;

Isaiah 40:22
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

From a great distance, a sphere would look like a circle. Perhaps the phrase "circle of the earth" refers to the outline of the earth? Perhaps. But then how could one see "all the kingdoms of the world? Those on the back hemisphere would remain hidden. The next passages should remove this confusion.

Psalms 136:6
to him who spread out the earth upon the waters, for his steadfast love endures forever;

Isaiah 44:24
Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb; "I am the Lord, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth -- Who was with me? --

If the earth were spherical, one would use a verb other than "spread out" to describe its creation (balled up, gathered up, gathered together, anything but spread out). One might say they "spread out" batter to make pancakes but no one would ever say they "spread out" hamburger to make meatballs. The earth in the Bible was "spread out" because it is flat.

(continued)

October 07, 2011 10:09 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This next verse appears to describe an earth that tele-literate humans would recognize.

Job 26: 7
He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.

The highlighted portion reads like a description of the earth as seen from outer space. The remainder is entirely obscure, however. What void are they talking about? What does it mean to "stretch out the north"? Help me somebody.

The shape of the earth

In any case, the earth is not spherical. According to the Scriptures, from a very high spot (heaven, for example) one could see the entire earth such that nothing would be hidden. Such a thing is not possible with a spherical earth as the opposite side can't be seen directly. This implies that the earth is flat.

Job 28:24
For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens.

Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.

Daniel 4:10-11
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.


Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;

Isaiah 40:22
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

From a great distance, a sphere would look like a circle. Perhaps the phrase "circle of the earth" refers to the outline of the earth? Perhaps. But then how could one see "all the kingdoms of the world? Those on the back hemisphere would remain hidden. The next passages should remove this confusion.

(continued)

October 07, 2011 10:12 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Psalms 136:6
to him who spread out the earth upon the waters, for his steadfast love endures forever;

Isaiah 44:24
Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb; "I am the Lord, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth -- Who was with me? --

If the earth were spherical, one would use a verb other than "spread out" to describe its creation (balled up, gathered up, gathered together, anything but spread out). One might say they "spread out" batter to make pancakes but no one would ever say they "spread out" hamburger to make meatballs. The earth in the Bible was "spread out" because it is flat.

Not only is the earth flat, it is also finite.

Psalms 103:12
as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.

On a spherical earth, one could travel east or west indefinitely. This passage seems to be saying that there is a limit to the directions east and west. That is, after some long journey, one would run out of east or west having reached the end of the earth. This contention is further justified in numerous passages.

Deuteronomy 28:64
And the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other; and there you shall serve other gods, of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.

Deuteronomy 33:17
His firstling bull has majesty, and his horns are the horns of a wild ox; with them he shall push the peoples, all of them, to the ends of the earth; such are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and such are the thousands of Manasseh.

1 Samuel 2:10
The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces; against them he will thunder in heaven. The Lord will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king, and exalt the power of his anointed.

Job 28:24
For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens.

Job 38:13
that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?

Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.

Psalms 22:27
All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him.

Psalms 46:9
He makes wars cease to the end of the earth; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear, he burns the chariots with fire!

Psalms 48:10
As thy name, O God, so thy praise reaches to the ends of the earth. Thy right hand is filled with victory;

(continued)

October 07, 2011 10:13 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 07, 2011 10:14 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Psalms 59:13
consume them in wrath, consume them till they are no more, that men may know that God rules over Jacob to the ends of the earth;

Psalms 61:2
from the end of the earth I call to thee, when my heart is faint. Lead thou me to the rock that is higher than I;

Psalms 65:5
By dread deeds thou dost answer us with deliverance, O God of our salvation, who art the hope of all the ends of the earth, and of the farthest seas;

Isaiah 41:9
you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, "You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off";

Jeremiah 51:16
When he utters his voice there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and he makes the mist rise from the ends of the earth.

Daniel 4:10-11
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

Mark 13:27
And then they will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

Isaiah 41:9
you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, "You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off";

Ezekiel 7:2
"And you, O son of man, thus says the Lord God to the land of Israel: An end! The end has come upon the four corners of the land.

Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on the earth or sea or against any tree.

Revelation 20:8
and will come out to deceive the nations which are at the four corners of the earth, that is, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea.

********end quote********

And please don't bother resorting to anything in the bible that says "circle of the earth," for this will only cause you more trouble. For not only would it would be an internal contradiction, i.e., the bible contradicting itself for circles don't have corners, but it would also fly in the face of the fact that Hebrew has a word for "circle" and a word for "ball" or "sphere." The mystics who wrote your storybook used the Hebrew word for "circle" instead of "ball" or "sphere" because a circle is flat -- just what they thought the earth was.

But you don't think that the earth is flat or has corners, do you, Trinity?

Ydemoc

October 07, 2011 10:22 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

good research, I was unaware of how much the bible supports the flat earth position. So howbout it Nide, should I reject all evidence that says the earth is round?

October 07, 2011 10:22 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

By the way, this little ditty...

Isaiah 44:24
Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb; "I am the Lord, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth -- Who was with me? --

...presents all kinds of problems for 3 in 1, god doctrine. "Who was with me?"

"Who was with you? Uh, well, uh, gee, uh, let's see... Jesus and the Holy Spirit, right? I mean, uh, Jesus is up there with you right, Lord? You didn't really mean that you were actually all alone when you said you stretched out the heavens "alone," did you? You didn't mean to suggest that Jesus wasn't with you when you ask, 'Who was with me?', did you Lord? Yeah, I didn't think so, because the "New and Improved Testament" and a bunch of people who rationalized these kinds of passages away, told me that this isn't what You meant, Lord."

Ydemoc

October 07, 2011 10:34 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You wrote: "good research, I was unaware of how much the bible supports the flat earth position."

Thanks. I certainly wasn't aware of this either, for a long, long time. I bet many Christians aren't aware of it either, especially young ones. These kinds of problems are usually rationalized or translated away.

"My storybook must be true, so science is wrong, donkeys can converse, translators are wrong, bodies pop out from graves and walk about the city without any historian making a note of it, reality must be wrong, A is not A."

Accepting such notions are what leads to and results from faith.

Faith says, "Reality Be Damned."

Ydemoc

October 07, 2011 10:56 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

By the way, another very telling feature for me that supports the idea that the bible is clearly a man-made product is the fact that it is written in Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament).

It seems to me both should have been accessible *at that time* to all people of different languages. Could not a supernatural being have provided enough inspiration to the tribal mystics who wrote it, to write it all out in every language that existed and would eventually exist throughout the world?

Very telling, that the writers' inspiration was restrained by what was available to them *at that time*.

We don't see this though. Just like we didn't see air conditioning, until enough knowledge was available.

Ydemoc

October 07, 2011 11:10 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Do you enjoy harassing other Christians?

Men spoke as they were carried along by God.

So, what you are really saying is God is wrong about his creation.

Look it up the verse is there. Every word in the bible is God-breathed. They come directly from God. It's a beautiful thing.


Justin,

I said twice I think and I will say it again:

God can't lie.



Ydemoc there is no trouble I'm not worried about a thing.

Go and find all the "contradictions" you want it will only be in vain.

They are only in your head. Learn from Justin so you don't make the same rash assumptions.


Bats aren't birds after all. It's amazing.









Didn't I tell you that God can't lie.

October 07, 2011 11:16 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

is 3.0 = 3.14159

yes or no?

do all known insect species have 6 leges?

yes or no?


@Ydemoc

how he tries to weasel out these should be intertaining

October 07, 2011 11:43 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 07, 2011 11:43 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

Once again I see you have avoided the main issue. Seeker of truth or conformist, which is it Nide? What is more important, using your mind to logically figure out your own conclusions or what the bible says?

October 07, 2011 11:47 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

additionally I could care less what you imagine god can or cant do. I am asking what I should do.

October 07, 2011 11:48 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

IDK I have never seen every insect have you?

3 = 3 why are you asking me this?

All the "contradictions" bouncing around in your and Ydemoc's head are not there. I said this already.

There are plenty of online resources that have solved the "contradictions". A simple google search will do the "trick".

.
As for me I know God can't lie that solves everything I don't need to go looking I have my answer.


So, Justin, you don't need to do anything but repent of your rebellion.

October 07, 2011 12:59 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 07, 2011 1:09 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"3 = 3 why are you asking me this?"

then I Kings 7.23 is in error. It should have been approximentaly 31.4 cubits around.

"IDK I have never seen every insect have you?"

my question was not dose every insect have 6 legs. My question was does every "KNOWN" insect have 6 legs. As you say, a quick google search on the subject would tell you.

It would appear that you have not answered the important question tho, the one that matters. Truth seeker or conformist? Does your answer that I should repent mean I should be a conformist to the bible? and that by extension I should stop using my mind to reason out my own conclusions, to blindly and without question follow the bible?

October 07, 2011 1:10 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

http://ad2004.com/prophecytruths/Articles/mathmystery.html

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Pi_In_The_Bible.html#.To9b590VRUI

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Pi_In_The_Bible.html#.To9cPN0VRUJ

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html


http://jerry.praxisiimath.com/pi.html

http://www.bibleprobe.com/pi.htm



Justin if you need more let me know.

October 07, 2011 1:11 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

thank you for the links, some of these I already know about, others are new to me. However what I really want to know from you is should I be a seeker of truth or a conformist?

October 07, 2011 1:14 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

A conformist and seeker of truth in respect to what?

October 07, 2011 1:26 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

taking from an earlier post of mine with only a minor edits
What is more important, what the bible says or what we discover thru the use of reason, even if they turn out to be the same. You are either a seeker of truth or a conformist. A seeker uses his/her mind to discover the truth by studying reality. A conformist chooses his paradigm, in your case the bible and filtering everything through it and would reject facts of reality if discovered that don't conform to the biblical world view. Please note that it in principle does not matter if you can not conceive of anything that could contradict the bible. Even when I was an objectivist lock stock and barrel I acknowledged that in principle I could be incorrect and that reality not my views of it were the final count of appeal concerning truth. I too at the time however could not have conceived of objectivism being in error, it is the principle of the matter Nide, I don't think you understand this. I have said it before and I’ll repeat it again, I don't think you can separate in your mind the paradigm and the reality it is supposed to model. This could relate to Dawson’s charge that you fail to distinguish reality from imagination. For you the map is the territory as the saying goes. I suspect your world view can not even allow for there being other world views, but I digress, which is it Nide, should I be a seeker of truth or a conformist.

October 07, 2011 1:53 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Do you enjoy harassing other Christians?"

In what way am I harassing you? You came on this board, peddling a primacy of consciousness, making assertions, and challenging the rational people who post here. We are simply responding to the irrational fundamentals and particulars of your subjective worldview.

Trinity wrote: "Men spoke as they were carried along by God."

Could not this god you say exists have thought of a better way to do make his existence known? How come I can think of better ways to make myself evident to the world better than your god can?

Trinity wrote: "So, what you are really saying is God is wrong about his creation."

No. What I'm really saying is that men were wrong in positing such a being as god in the first place.

Trinity wrote: "Look it up the verse is there. Every word in the bible is God-breathed. They come directly from God. It's a beautiful thing."

When I look up verses in the bible, among every so-called "God-breathed" and "beautiful things" I find is:

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

I also find this "God-breathed" and "beautiful thing"...

"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever." (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

(continued)

October 07, 2011 3:21 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

I also find this "God-breathed" and "beautiful thing"...

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

I also find this "God-breathed" and "beautiful thing"...

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

I also find this "God-breathed" and "beautiful thing"...

"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

I also find this "God-breathed" and "beautiful thing"...

"The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

October 07, 2011 3:26 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

I also find this "God-breathed" and a "beautiful thing"...

“0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” Psalms 137:8-9

I also find this "God-breathed" and a "beautiful thing"...

Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.”

Yes, such a lovely being, this imaginary god that you worship.

Ydemoc

October 07, 2011 3:35 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Concerning your last two posts, wow....


It leads me to this moral conclusion. If god existed I think we would have to figure out a way to kill him, for clearly he is a threat to mankind.

October 07, 2011 3:37 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Yep. It's not an easy task to differentiate between the actions of an imaginary god and an imaginary devil.

Ydemoc

October 07, 2011 3:45 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Neat way of ignoring context.

You ever bother to look into the social-historical-economical- political setting?

That will calm your fears and Justin's.

October 07, 2011 3:52 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "You ever bother to look into the social-historical-economical- political setting?"

Wow! A Christian resorting to "Moral Relativism."

Either slavery is wrong or it's not. Did murder and stealing require a "social-historical-economical- political setting" in order for your god to label it as wrong?

Should we also consider the ""social-historical-economical- political setting" when it comes to mystics asserting that donkeys can talk, that insects have 4 legs, that bodies can pop out of graves and stroll about town, that Jesus rose from the dead, that Adam and Eve were the first humans?

There is much, much more that can be said about your response, Trinity. You have opened a Pandora's Box where your worldview is concerned.

The funny thing is: You probably don't even realize it.

Ydemoc

October 07, 2011 4:04 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

dont get side tracked here, please dont forget about my question concerning seekers of truth vs conformists.

October 07, 2011 4:39 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Context is really important but on the other hand why should anybody be moral if were just a bunch of animals fighting to be on top no matter who we topple why should anybody care about what you think?

Why should people me moral?

Why should people not murder or steal?

Afterall, we die and conscienceness ceases so who cares how we choose to live We die and that's it.

Justin,

Be a Conformist.

October 07, 2011 11:48 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

Thank you for you frank and to the point answer to my question. Now just so we understand completely were we stand I need you to understand that in no uncertain terms I would rather die then be a conformist. So given this fact I think there can be no meaningful communication between us. However I really enjoy the entertainment value of the discussion so ill be sticking around.

October 07, 2011 11:57 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Ok, then die.

Your welcome. Enjoy your stay.

October 08, 2011 5:44 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

In a previous comment, Trinity had written: "Every word in the bible is God-breathed. They come directly from God. It's a beautiful thing."

I then provided several quotes from the bible, both Old and New Testament, that show that god not only sanctioned owning slaves, but also laid down rules on what kinds of slaves can be purchased, when to beat them, when to release them, when to pass them down through inheritance, and when to mutilate them, and what happens if a slave is beat them to death.

To which Trinity responded: "Neat way of ignoring context. You ever bother to look into the social-historical-economical- political setting?" and "Context is really important..."

I would agree that context is very important. And that is why I was careful in keeping it, not only with what you asserted, i.e., "Every word in the bible is God-breathed. They come directly from God. It's a beautiful thing," and applying it to the slavery passages from the bible; but also in keeping consistant with what your bible teaches.

You see, your bible says you must not steal -- that stealing is wrong. But slavery is a form of theft, in that one is stealing the life and labor of another human being.

So it is really you who is seeking to ignore context. And it is you and other Christians who have difficulty, in this modern age, of coming to grips with what your bible espouses and what you and they hold to be moral.

Which is why I responded thusly: "Either slavery is wrong or it's not. Did murder and stealing require a "social-historical-economical- political setting" in order for your god to label it as wrong?"

In fact, many pro-slavery Christians in the 1800's, during the time of America's Civil War and prior to that, pointed to those very passages in your bible in an effort to keep slavery from being abolished. These Christians knew how to keep context. They were quite consistent in what they wrote about slavery and the bible.

For example, Charles Hodge was Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. In "The Bible Argument on Slavery," in Cotton is King and Pro-Slavery Arguments, (ed. E. N. Elliott [1860]), Hodge wrote:

"It is on all hands acknowledged that, at the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its worst forms prevailed over the whole world. The Saviour found it around him in Judea; the apostles met with it in Asia, Greece and Italy. How did they treat it? Not by the denunciation of slaveholding as necessarily and universally sinful. Not by declaring that all slaveholders were men-stealers and robbers, and consequently to be excluded from the church and the kingdom of heaven. Not by insisting on immediate emancipation. Not by appeals to the passions of men on the evils of slavery, or by the adoption of a system of universal agitation . . . If we are wiser, better, more courageous than Christ and his apostles, let us say so; but it will do no good, under a paroxysm of benevolence, to attempt to tear the Bible to pieces, or to exhort, by violent exegesis, a meaning foreign to its obvious sense." (p. 847-48).

And consider this from Hodge:

"The fact that the Mosaic institutions recognized the lawfulness of slavery is a point too plain to need proof, and is almost universally admitted. Our argument from this acknowledged fact is, that if God allowed slavery to exist, if he directed how slaves might be lawfully acquired, and how they were to be treated, it is in vain to contend that slaveholding is a sin, and yet profess reverence for the Scriptures. Everyone must feel that if perjury, murder, or idolatry had been thus authorized, it would bring the Mosaic institutions into conflict with the eternal principles of morals, and that our faith in the divine origin of one or the other must be given up." (pp. 859-60).

(continued)

October 08, 2011 9:58 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

So you see, Trinity, men like Hodge (and there are quite a lot of them) agreed that slavery was indeed biblical and should, therefore, continue. Why don't you believe the same? What is it that you find objectionable about slavery in today's modern age?

Trinity wrote: "...but on the other hand why should anybody be moral if were just a bunch of animals fighting to be on top no matter who we topple why should anybody care about what you think?"

Because morality is a code of values to guide man's life. Life is the ultimate value. If you want to live your life and attain happiness, you need to do certain things. How do you decide what these things are? By reason.

Trinity wrote: "Why should people me moral?"

In order to live. If you do what is immoral, i.e., not follow the proper code of values, you will die.

Trinity wrote: "Why should people not murder or steal?"

If you honestly believe that all that is standing between you and stealing and murdering is what a storybook tells you, than by all means, keep believing it. For the rest of us who are rational, we recognize that murdering and stealing are not values which will further our lives. That's why we don't do these things.

Trinity wrote: "Afterall, we die and conscienceness ceases so who cares how we choose to live We die and that's it."

Life is an end in itself, Trinity. The meaning we find in it and give to it applies while we are alive. This is what makes it so valuable for those of us who are rational. The irrational, like devout Christians, and Muslims who like to blow themselves up, find zero value in this life, other than doing that which will take them to the next life. That is the very description of destroying one's life -- of immorality.

Trinity wrote: "why should anybody be moral if were just a bunch of animals fighting to be on top no matter who we topple why should anybody care about what you think?"

You have described a morality that does not apply to me. I am not "just an animal" fighting to be on top. On top of what?

My code of values recognizes that just as I would not sacrifice myself for someone else, so I don't expect others to sacrifice themselves to me. As far as caring what others think? It isn't my primary concern, and a morality built on such a foundation as caring what others think would not be one that I or anyone else could follow. That isn't to say I don't care what others think -- I do -- if and when what other people offer me is in accordance with what I value. For example, I value the kind of blog that Dawson has. I value his writing. It is a value to me. I also care what others think if what they think leads to actions that begin to infringe upon my values. For example, if slavery was ever proposed to be re-instituted, I would care a lot about what others think. I can do this, because at my moral foundation, I have a code of values by which I can guide my choices and actions.

Much more can be said about your stance on the bible sanctioning slavery and *your* out-of-context rationalizations. Perhaps I will tackle it later.

Ydemoc

October 08, 2011 9:58 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

And just to show that there are modern-day Christians who are willing to be consistent and keep context with regard to slavery, here is a little something from one of your leaders, Douglas Wilson:
(From the Credenda/Agenda website):

On Slavery

[N]othing is clearer – the New Testament opposes anything like the abolitionism of our country prior to the War Between the States. The New Testament contains many instructions for Christian slave owners, and requires a respectful submissive demeanor for Christian slaves. See, for example, Eph. 6:5-9, Col. 3:22-4:1, and 1 Tim. 6:1-5.
. . .
The reason why many Christians will be tempted to dismiss the arguments presented here is that we have said (out loud) that a godly man could have been a slave owner. But this 'inflammatory' position is the very point upon which the Bible speaks most directly, again and again. In other words, more people will struggle with what we are saying at the point where the Bible speaks most clearly. There is no exegetical vagueness here. Not only is the Bible not politically correct, it was not politically correct one hundred thirty years ago.
. . .
This entire issue of slavery is a wonderful issue upon which to practice. Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, and acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe?

********end quote************

Ydemoc

October 08, 2011 10:06 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Here is my response:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html


Who's Douglas wilson?

Is lying immoral?

October 08, 2011 11:09 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

In a previous comment, Trinity had written: "Every word in the bible is God-breathed. They come directly from God. It's a beautiful thing."

I then provided several quotes from the bible, both Old and New Testament, that show that god not only sanctioned owning slaves, but also laid down rules on what kinds of slaves can be purchased, when to beat them, when to release them, when to pass them down through inheritance, and when to mutilate them, and what happens if a slave is beat them to death.

Trinity's response to all that I have presented to him is to direct me to a Christian apologetic website called gotquestions.org.

Since this seems to be Trinity's place to run to whenever he can't answer something on his own even though he claims to have the indwelling of a all-knowing Holy Spirit, let us see how this website answers the question of slavery for him and his bible.

(continued)

October 08, 2011 3:29 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

gotquestions.org writes: "The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery."

No. It doesn't. This in and of itself should be enough to undermine any moral high-ground that Christians want to claim for themselves and their story book.

gotquestions.org continues: "It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether."

This is like saying that Christians have in their possession a book on morality that gives instructions on how hostages should be treated. If you have taken hostages in the first place, you have no morality. Period.

gotquestions.org writes: "Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery."

Yes. And this includes many Christians, who in the 19th century were adamantly opposed to the abolition of slavery on the grounds that it went against what the bible teaches.

gotquestions.org writes: "What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world."

Well, gee whiz, do ya think that maybe if the bible had, oh, I don't know, maybe uttered a few words about how ANY kind of slavery should not be tolerated, then perhaps there wouldn't have been the kind of "slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world?"

gotquestions.org writes: "The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race."

Please notice the weasel word "exclusively" here.

gotquestions.org writes: "People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin."

What matters here is the fact that people were enslaved and not the reasons for doing so.

gotquestions.org writes "In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status."

This is laughable. Was hitting and beating of a slave also a matter of social status?

gotquestions.org: "People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families."

And the god of the bible couldn't have told these people that this probably wasn't a good idea? To sell yourself as property to someone else who can beat and whip you?

gotquestions.org writes: "In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters."

Have their "needs provided for by their masters?" You mean like if I was to voluntarily offer myself into the California Penal System so that I could get health care and food? And in exchange they own me and can beat and whip me? This is absolute lunacy. One not need give away one's freedom and become the property of another in order gain values. All one needs to do is enter into a contract for employment. Your god could have seen the folly in this, but he didn't. The reason he didn't is because the mystics who wrote the bible really didn't have any spiritual insight at all. What they wrote was not inspired by any supernatural being. They were just men, mystics who didn't know any better, and included slavery as a part of their morality. And Trinity, if you are buying any of what gotquestions.org is peddling, you are more naive than I thought.

The rest of the response on gotquestions.org goes on with more rationalizations, such as making a distinction between the slavery of the bible vs. slavery based on skin color.

It does not matter why you are enslaved. What matters is that you are. If your freedom has been taken away involuntarily and by no fault of your own, and you are the property of someone else in body and mind to the point that you can be physically abused or even killed by your master, this is immoral. Period.

(continued)

October 08, 2011 3:30 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Here's a little more of what gotquestions.org says: "In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms."

And many Christians supported such practice with the bible.

gotquestions.org writes: "This practice is abhorrent to God."

No. It's abhorrent to you, gotquestions.org. It's abhorrent to you because you recognize it's immorality, something the bible failed to make clear.

gotquestions.org writes: "In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16).

Give me a break! Am I supposed to believe that the same book that tells me how to treat my slave, is now telling me that if I go and capture a human being for slavery, that this is bad? But beating and whipping them is a-okay as long as I follow certain rules? This type of double-speak is making my head spin.

No the verse cited by Trinity's website is most likely referring to stealing someone else's slave.

gotquestions.org writes: "Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10)."

Well, this is just another case where the bible seems to contradict itself. I am glad these kinds of internal contradictions aren't my problem. I will also add that Trinity should perhaps take not of the verse that comes before this in 1 Timothy 6. It reads:

"Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions."

Finally, gotquestions.org writes: "A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others."

Were the slaveholders of the bible experiencing god's grace and being gracious towards others when they beat, mutilated, married, raped, or killed their human property? Were the slaveholders and their Christian apologists during the 19th century experiencing god's grace and being gracious towards others when they beat, mutilated, raped, or killed their human property?

gotquestions.org writes: "That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery."

Wow. What a round-about, toppsy-turvy, immoral way to go about it, when all your god had to say is: "Do not enslave others. Freedom is a good thing."

Now two other questions Trinity asked were: "Who's Douglas wilson?
Is lying immoral?"

Douglas Wilson is a conservative Reformed and evangelical theologian. http://www.dougwils.com/

Of course lying can be moral. If I lie to intruders in my home who want to rape and kill my wife and I tell them that she isn't home but at the grocery store, when in fact she is home, I have just performed a highly moral act by lying to bad people. If Nazis come to my door and ask me if Anne Frank is home, and I lie and tell them "I don't know Anne Frank" then that is moral.

I wonder how you might answer these questions, Trinity, given that your god tells you not to lie?

Ydemoc

October 08, 2011 3:31 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,


Your objections are invalid. You don't know what morality is.


God is moral. He's morality.

Where do you think you get your sense of morality from?


There are a lot of things that God allows. Men aren't robots.


The wicked may prosper but they will give an answer one day.


You don't have a basis for making moral judgements you don't even know what morality it is.




Why should anyone want to live?





By the way Is it ok if I lie to you?








Y asked: "I wonder how you might answer these questions, Trinity, given that your god tells you not to lie?"


Men are liars including me.

October 08, 2011 4:28 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"
Your objections are invalid. You don't know what morality is."

thats rich :)

Morality is the understood and the chosen not the commanded and obeyed, however you are a conformist, you don't make your decisions, as a result what would you know of morality.... nothing.

October 08, 2011 5:27 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote to Nide, r_c321, Hezekiah (the three persons of the Knucklehead): "thats rich :) Morality is the understood and the chosen not the commanded and obeyed, however you are a conformist, you don't make your decisions, as a result what would you know of morality.... nothing."

Exactly.

Ydemoc

October 08, 2011 5:31 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 08, 2011 5:32 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"God is moral. He's morality.

Where do you think you get your sense of morality from?"

Ok so I am supposed to trust a bunch of ignorant sheep herding middle eastern primitives from 2,500 years ago or I don't know maybe evolutionary psychologists. You know the guys using reason to figure out the nature of reality, including our own. Also once again you commit yourself to the logical fallacy of equivocation. A standard is not an entity.

October 08, 2011 5:33 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote, "Men are liars including me."

Jesus was a man. Was he a liar?

Ydemoc

October 08, 2011 5:37 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

if god is morality and everything he does is by virtue of this fact good, then if god commanded you to go out and murder everyone in a coffee shop with a machine gun would you? Don't give the crap that god would not ask you to do this, you don't know the mind of god anymore then any other mortal and besides which the old testament gives up ample examples of god doing things just like this. Where is your moral center Nide, do you think for yourself or are you a amoral conformist?

October 08, 2011 5:37 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Men are liars including me."

Including the men who wrote the bible?

How about the people who contribute content to gotquestions.org? Are they liars?

Ydemoc

October 08, 2011 5:44 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

They actually expect us to take this book seriously? It has far less internal consistency then Lord of the Rings for crying out loud :)

October 08, 2011 6:08 PM  
Blogger Nide Corniell said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 08, 2011 6:28 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

I am happy to see you didn't die.

It's interesting becuase God doesn't want to die.

Where do you think you get your sense of wanting to live?

See the "proof"? Your a Christian


Justin God is not a murder. He would never command anyone to murder. Have you seen an MD lately?

Your question is invalid as usual.


Ydemoc,

Asked: "Jesus was a man. Was he a liar?"


Not only is this an invalid question but it's a category error.

Jesus and Men are not in the same category.

Notice that Jesus is not born of a man but of God.

Men inheret their sin natures from their father(Adam)

Jesus inhereted his nature from his father(God)

We know God is not a liar therefore Jesus is not a liar.

Then you asked: "Including the men who wrote the bible?


Yea they are liars too but this is another invalid question. Since men were carried along by God as they spoke and wrote they were protected from error.

The bible is not the word's of men, Ydemoc, but of God.


I pointed this out to you already. Here are the verses:

2 peter 1: 21 "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

2 timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"


You continued: "How about the people who contribute content to gotquestions.org? Are they liars?"


Every man.



P.S. Greet Dawson for me.

October 08, 2011 6:29 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote: "They actually expect us to take this book seriously? It has far less internal consistency then Lord of the Rings for crying out loud :)"

The movie "Joe Dirt" is more internally consistent.

Ydemoc

October 08, 2011 6:38 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Not only is this an invalid question but it's a category error. Jesus and Men are not in the same category."

Soooooo, a man didn't die on the cross?

Ydemoc

October 08, 2011 6:49 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"It's interesting becuase God doesn't want to die.

Where do you think you get your sense of wanting to live?

See the "proof"? Your a Christian"

actually evolutionary biology gives a better answer that actually tells us something about us. Mainly that individuals with a strong instinct to survive had more children then those that didn't. This is a much better answer then god did it, which leaves us knowing no more than we did before. Additionally how can an all powerful god have a want/instinct to survive? His existence would not be contingent. Nothing could kill him so he would have no need to have the instinct to survive.


"Justin God is not a murder. He would never command anyone to murder. Have you seen an MD lately?"

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

care to rephrase your response?

October 08, 2011 6:59 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Asked: "Soooooo, a man didn't die on the cross?

This is another invalid question.

Jesus was a man hence the God man.

He was Fully human and Fully God. It's Amazing.

The word was with God and the Word was God and the Word became flesh.


This is the part you, Dawson and Justin can't wrap your finite "little" minds around.

October 08, 2011 7:00 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

this is kind of fun, the bible is there own worst enemy, :)

October 08, 2011 7:00 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

He was Fully human and Fully God. It's Amazing.

what ever happened to A is A?

October 08, 2011 7:01 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Here is my answer again maybe you read it with one eye open:

"Justin God is not a murder. He would never command anyone to murder. Have you seen an MD lately?"

October 08, 2011 7:03 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"Justin,

I am happy to see you didn't die."

fortunately I live in a secular society where I will never be forced to confront that choice. I only expressed to let you know that I value conformity less then zero.

October 08, 2011 7:04 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

What makes an elephant act like an elephant?

October 08, 2011 7:06 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Oddly I will be seeing a MD soon, but to have foot surgery and nothing more. My eyesight is correctable to 20/20 and my reasoning faculties are just fine. I judge your god to be a murderer. Remember I think for myself, I am not a conformist. Thus I don't really care what you believe concerning god, I will come to my own conclusions.

October 08, 2011 7:08 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote: "this is kind of fun, the bible is there own worst enemy, :)"

Yep. Trinity has set himself up for failure, he just doesn't know it yet. He's already admitted that he's a liar (should we believe him if he's a liar?).

Then he says that men are liars. But Jesus was a man. No, no, says Trinity. Jesus was fully man and fully God.

As Dawson has pointed out: A single being with two natures that contradict each other -- "Jesus is literally a walking contradiction."

Anyway, keeping with the spirit of Trinity's logic (or complete lack thereof), I'm going to go watch tv (baseball) and not watch tv, but while I'm doing so I will be monitoring the comments on this board and not monitoring them at the same time and in the same respect.

Ydemoc

October 08, 2011 7:09 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

Do you know the mind of god in total? Can you say with certainty that you so value that he would not ask you to kill people? If so is your knowledge then greater or at least equal to god's?

October 08, 2011 7:11 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

"Anyway, keeping with the spirit of Trinity's logic (or complete lack thereof), I'm going to go watch tv (baseball) and not watch tv, but while I'm doing so I will be monitoring the comments on this board and not monitoring them at the same time and in the same respect."

sorry mate, you are not an unobserved quantum particle :)

October 08, 2011 7:13 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 08, 2011 7:21 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"What makes an elephant act like an elephant?"

law of identity, A is A, the corollary to that is to exist is to be to something, or existence is identity. So in other words what makes an elephant act like an elephant is the fact that it is an elephant. duh.....

October 08, 2011 7:22 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote: "sorry mate,..."

Are you sorry and not sorry at the same time and in the same respect?

Justin continued: "...you are not..."

Am I not? Or am I? In at the same time and in the same respect.

Justin continued: "...an unobserved quantum particle :)"

Well, maybe I can be observed and not observed at the same time and in the same respect.

And my little comedic parsing is the logical equivalent of where we would end up if we accepted his storybook and the doctrines that follow from it.

Ydemoc

October 08, 2011 7:23 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Dawson

are you enjoying this? :)

October 08, 2011 7:26 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Am I the only one not laughing?

This deserves a proverbs moment:

"Don't answer Fools according to their folly or you will be like them"

October 08, 2011 7:37 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"Am I the only one not laughing?"

quite possibly

"Don't answer Fools according to their folly or you will be like them"

Well I would Nide but you are just so funny I cant help it

October 08, 2011 7:49 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

What's a nature?


I see you enjoy ringing around the rosy with elephants.

See why the analogy fits?

October 08, 2011 7:57 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Don't answer Fools according to their folly or you will be like them"

What does it matter if you answer fools or not? And what does it matter in your worldview whether or not you become like us? Once saved always saved, right Trinity?

Are you telling me that once you are regenerated you can become un-regenerated? Can you lose your salvation by becoming like us?

And since you are filled with the Holy Spirit, with god guiding your every move, isn't god really talking to himself in this proverb?

And if he is just talking to himself, what is he worried about? He's god, right?

Welcome to the topsy-turvy, upside-down world of theism.

Ydemoc

October 08, 2011 7:59 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

I think you need some sleep you "sound" disoriented are you intoxicated? Get some sleep man. We can pick up tomorrow.


Blessings

October 08, 2011 8:14 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "I think you need some sleep you "sound" disoriented are you intoxicated? Get some sleep man. We can pick up tomorrow."

I'm neither disoriented nor intoxicated, nor am I that sleepy. I am, however, biding my time while I sit here waiting for the rain delay to end so that I can watch the remainder of The American League Championship Series.

Ydemoc

October 08, 2011 8:31 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"Justin,

What's a nature?


I see you enjoy ringing around the rosy with elephants.

See why the analogy fits?"

Nide we have covered this before, the concepts of existence and identity are unavoidable tautologies and thus not the conclusions of prior argumentation but are a necessary precondition for argumentation, so no,there is no circular reasoning here. He really need to understand logic, I recommended Copi's introduction some time ago, the suggestion still stands

October 08, 2011 8:39 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Great.

This will keep you busy:

http://www.esvbible.org/Luke+13/

October 08, 2011 8:44 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

I have taken two logic courses:

Logic and higher methods of math.

Discrete structures. Which you should be familiar with.

and currently taking another another.

That's for your FYI.



So, in other words you don't know.


I just realized van til was brilliant.

October 08, 2011 8:50 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 08, 2011 9:46 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

bully for you, therefore you have no excuse then for not understanding foundationalist logic. I would love to see you try to create a syllogism that does not presuppose both the concepts identity and existence. Go for it.

October 08, 2011 9:47 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 08, 2011 9:51 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

In fact Nide unless you can do just that, create a argument that does not presuppose the concepts existence and identity then I would wager you slept threw class for clearly you can not properly identify when someone is committing circular reasoning and when they are not.

October 08, 2011 9:52 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"I just realized van til was brilliant."

speaking of someone that committed themselves of circular reasoning, in those rare times they actuality constructed an argument at all

October 08, 2011 9:55 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

seriously, you took a course on logic? One would never know from listening to you. I am going to revisit my logical fallacy counter for you and update it. For someone that took a course on logic you sure like fallacies in your reasoning.
Remember in order for your charge of circular reasoning to stick you will have to show that the concepts existence and identity are the valid conclusions of prior argumentation. This will be fun :)

October 08, 2011 10:02 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

fresh off the fallacy press, you posted to Ydemoc quoting Luke 13. Can you say ad baculum. I know you could :) But wait someone versed in logic would know that is a fallacy. It is also a juvenile unsubstantiated threat. Way to go Nide.

October 08, 2011 10:17 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

you are now Captain America.

what should we name Ydemoc?

October 09, 2011 6:31 AM  
Blogger Luiz Claudio said...

The only value I see in discussing with people like Nide is to understand how christians' mindset and evasion tactics works. Justin is making a good work in ginving Nide a lot of rope to hang himself and providing us with some enlightment about christian deshonesty and some entertanment.

October 09, 2011 8:11 AM  
Blogger NAL said...

Dawson,

Thanks for the link to the video early in the comments. It make a lot of sense. God is the self. Answers many theistic behavior questions.

October 09, 2011 8:34 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Time to go into the archives of Dawson's blog for a little "Bahnsen Burning," to address Trinity and other Christians' assertion that Jesus was fully man and fully god.

This exchange comes from "Christ Jesus: Still a Jumble of Contradictions" (August 8, 2005). It is from the comments section, and it is an exchange Dawson had with a Christian apologist who goes by the name groundfighter76 (GF76 for short):

GF76: “Jesus has both A (divine nature) and B (human nature).”

Let’s explore this. Jesus has both an immortal nature and not an immortal nature. Hmmm…. Yep, contradiction.

GF76: “Now of course his human nature is not his divine nature and his divine nature is not his human nature.”

Exactly. Jesus is a single being that is both divine and not divine, both immortal and not immortal, both uncreated and not uncreated, and so on. You’ve not shown otherwise. By the way, which one died on the cross - Jesus the god (but an immortal being cannot die, by definition), or Jesus the man (the death of a man cannot atone sins)? Incoherence keeps popping up all over the place, like mushrooms after a long day of rainy weather.

GF76: “A (the divine nature) is not B (his human nature).”

Indeed, A is not non-A. B is just another way of saying non-A. But when you say that a single being is both A and B, you’re saying that it is both A and also non-A. Again, any way you slice it, you have a contradiction on your hands.

GF76: “Likewise, B (his human nature) is not A (his divine nature).”

Again, you’re making my point for me. See, nothing hard to understand here.

GF76: “They are two natures (distinct yet inseparable) in one essence/person.”

And since Jesus is a single being which allegedly has these “two natures,” and since these "two natures" are contradictory to each other (e.g., one is uncreated, the other uncreated, etc.), Jesus is literally a walking contradiction (to the extent that Christians want to believe Jesus ever walked).

GF76: “To get your example to work, you would somehow have to 'mix' his two natures into one, which is not what we claim and is why the supposed 'contradiction' fails.”

Actually, it is what Christians claim, and this is confirmed in numerous ways. For one, Jesus is referred to in the singular. When speaking of Jesus in the third person, he is referred to with the pronoun “he,” just as I did here. He is not referred to as “they,” which is what would have to be the case if he were more than one. Also, the gospels use the pronoun "I" (first person singular) when Jesus is speaking in reference to himself (cf. Matt. 5:44) as well as the pronoun "me" (cf. Matt. 4:19). Also, the Westminster Confession of Faith, which you yourself cited, affirms that Jesus is “of one substance,” thus confirming that Christianity conceives of Jesus as a single entity. And even though the notion of a single entity having two natures (indeed, two natures which contradict one another on at least 20 points) is blitheringly incoherent in itself, it is in this “one substance” that is Jesus that these two natures are combined to form a single entity, which constitutes an embodiment of contradiction.

GF76: “You are still confusing the two natures as if they were somehow one nature (or as though one nature overrid the other).”

Actually, it seems to me that it would be impossible to hold that one or the other nature did not override the other in some way. For instance, look at the question: Is Jesus immortal? Yes or no? If you say that Jesus is immortal, then this could only be taken as confirming that Jesus’ divine nature overrides his human nature. Is Jesus omniscient? Yes or no? If you say that Jesus is omniscient, then this could only be taken as confirming that Jesus’ divine nature overrides his human nature. Now if you respond to such questions as saying both “yes and no,” then you’re simply affirming the contradiction which I have pointed out. Boy, you're in a real bind here, buddy.

(continued)

October 09, 2011 10:21 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

GF76: “As stated before, in the hypostatic union, Jesus' two natures are totally separate,”

Here you contradict yourself, for above you said that Jesus’ “two natures” are “distinct yet inseparable.” To say on the one hand that two things are “inseparable,” and then to turn around and say of the same two things are “totally separate” as you do here, is a blatant contradiction. Something that is "inseparable" cannot also be said to be "totally separate." It seems you're making this up as you go. Anyway, as I concluded: Christians worship contradiction as such. Again, you simply seal my case for me.

GF76: “but they are united in one person (essence).”

First they are “inseparable,” then they are “totally separate,” and now “they are united in one person (essence).” You’re simply turning up the volume on the incoherence of your worldview. Christian double-talk seeking to protect the enshrinement of a double-minded man. I'm glad these aren't my problems!

GF76: “Because they are totally separate, each nature retains its own attributes.”

So again, Jesus is both immortal (“fully God”) and not immortal (“fully man”). Yep, that’s a contradiction.

GF76: “That means that in his human nature, Jesus' knowledge is limited to what he has learned as a man, while in his divine nature he is totally omniscient, knowing everything.”

So Jesus is both omniscient AND not omniscient. As James 1:8 points out: “a double minded man is unstable in all his ways.”

GF76: “Mr. Manata identified that Jesus had two natures and the human nature would not be divine and vice versa. Remember A and B.”

And so long as B is something other than A, then A and B is another way of saying A and non-A. Can you find a logic text which disagrees with me?

I wrote: "Again, using this approach one could say that a square circle is a square that "took on" a circular nature, and thus the notion of a square circle, on this "logic," is not self-contradictory. After all, don't squares and circles constitute "distinct categories"?"

GF76: “If you want to use this example the square will still remain a square and the circle still remain a circle as each nature maintains its essential identity in the hypostatic union.”

Well, at least you’re consistent in your loving embrace of contradictions, for here you allow for the reality of square circles.

GF76: “Of course, if you would actually study systematicians such as Shedd, Hodge, Turretin, Berkhof, etc, you would know all this and we may not be having this conversation.”

I see you don’t cite any of the bible’s authors in there. Why is that?

GF76: “As it stands, you have thus far failed to deliver on your contradiction.”

Au contraire. As it stands, you have thus far failed to puncture my criticism. Your lance is flaccid and has no point.

I notice that you didn't deal with the other matter I brought up, namely the problem that John 4:24 ("God is a Spirit") and Luke 24:39 ("a spirit hath not flesh and bones") introduce in this matter. Were you in too much of a rush to get to this, or did you avoid it for some reason?

*********end archive quote*******

Ydemoc

October 09, 2011 10:22 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 09, 2011 10:39 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"Justin,

you are now Captain America.

what should we name Ydemoc?"

Captain....wow. The highest rank I achieved in my 6 years of service in the navy was E4, and I am a little bitter over it as I should have made E5. I am honored that you think I could have been a Captain, but the name is Hall not America. Nide mockery is not going to work as an evasion tactic. Now you charged me with circular reasoning when I employed the law of identity in answer to your question. This charge would only be true if the law of identity was the valid conclusion of prior argumentation. If you can not provide such an argument an honest and honorable man would retract the accusation of circular reasoning. Additionally sense you have admonished me to be a conformist I expect this argument to be of biblical origin because if you were to go outside of the Christian paradigm you would be thinking for yourself and thus a seeker of truth and not a conformist. Note authors like Van Til and bahnsen are acceptable as they claim the bible as their authority, but the argument must be valid.

@Luiz Claudio

I am frankly surprised that I finally got him to cop to being a conformist. I truly thought he would evade that for ever. Which reminds me he never did answer Dawson about the metaphysical relationship between the subject and object of consciousness. I really enjoyed how he repeated that god does not murder after I presented 3 passages from the bible that any reasonable person in our modern secular society would consider either commanding murder or condoning it.

@Dawson

come back we miss you :)

@Ydemoc

how did the game end. Did your favorite team both win and not win at the same time in the same respect, speaking of the law of identity :) Quantum mechanics makes my head hurt.

October 09, 2011 10:43 AM  
Blogger Luiz Claudio said...

Nide has already conceeded he tries to conform reality to a prior thruth he established by his will. He is an explainer, a rationalizer, an evader like every mistic. His god is himself. "The Bible cannot lie" says all we need to hear about this

October 09, 2011 10:45 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote: "how did the game end. Did your favorite team both win and not win at the same time in the same respect, speaking of the law of identity :) Quantum mechanics makes my head hurt."

My favorite team since I was a kid is the Detroit Tigers. And they lost. Funny enough, I'm unhappy about it, which precludes me from being happy about it. Interesting how that works.

Ydemoc

October 09, 2011 10:52 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Inspector Gadget aka Ydemoc,

It's interesting that when you can't answer something you run to Dawson.

Mr.Gadget maybe you can help Captain America:

What's a nature?

Luis,

Did you miss the proverb moment?

Here enjoy " Don't answer a fool(luis) according to his folly or you will be like him"


CA,

God is not a syllogism I said this already. He is the precondition for them.

See why you're a Christian?

God is existence. He exists. It's inescapable.


Captain America let's talk about self-awareness.

Can you describe identity?

October 09, 2011 5:46 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "It's interesting that when you can't answer something you run to Dawson."

What makes you think that during those times I've cited Dawson in order to answer one of your questions, that this has anything to do with my inability to answer you on my own?

Furthermore, whether I choose to answer something or not, what I find interesting is that when I do cite Dawson neither you nor gotquestions.org nor any other apoligist can answer him with anything approaching coherency.

Trinity wrote: "What's a nature?"

I'm kinda fond of this answer:

"Nature is existence — the sum of that which is. It is usually called “nature” when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law. So “nature” really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities." "The Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture series; Leonard Peikoff, Lecture 2"

Ydemoc

October 09, 2011 6:16 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Inspector Gadget,

And what makes you think I can't answer your question when I qoute gq.org?


What makes you think BB's answers are coherent?


"Nature is Existence"?


In others words you really don't know.

I really just realized van til was brilliant.


By the way is it ok if I lie to you?

October 09, 2011 6:29 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 09, 2011 7:43 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 09, 2011 7:52 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 09, 2011 7:53 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 09, 2011 7:54 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

CA,

Nide said.. “God is not a syllogism I said this already. He is the precondition for them.”

Well that is a assertion that you can argue for anytime you wish

Nide said... “See why you're a Christian?”

I get it, you think I am presupposing god by using logic. You have yet to provide syllogism for it, and until you do don't expect to be taken seriously. Nide I strongly suspect you are confusing metaphysics with entomology. Epistemologically speaking (not metaphysically) the concepts existence and identity are presupposed in every thought and every argument. They would have to presupposed even to argue against them.

Nide said.... “God is existence. He exists. It's inescapable.”

Earlier you said god was love and logic, now he is existence? Take note that in the parlance of objectivism the concept existence denotes the sum total of everything. So you have expanded the meaning of god to make is essentially meaningless. Now if god is a precondition to think as in epistemologically speaking then you should be able to describe god, not argue for, just describe him without using or implying the concepts existence and identity. How the heck you are going to do this is beyond me for in your own words you say he exists, there you are just presupposing the concept existence and sense it is god and not something else you are claiming exists, you imply the concept identity as well. In fact you cant describe god without making use of these concepts which means epistemologically speaking they are more fundamental to thinking.

Nide said... Captain America let's talk about self-awareness.

Lets not for now. You accused me of using circular reasoning and I am not letting that go. I would like you to describe god without employing the law of identity in you description, if you cant drop the circular reasoning tripe every time someone uses A is A.

Nide said... Can you describe identity?

The concept? Just what are you asking here. If you mean the concept its referent is the fact that everything is something.

PS I don't mind your nickname for me, its better then what they call me at work, stickboy :)

October 09, 2011 7:53 PM

October 09, 2011 7:54 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity had written: "It's interesting that when you can't answer something you run to Dawson."

I responded: "What makes you think that during those times I've cited Dawson in order to answer one of your questions, that this has anything to do with my inability to answer you on my own?"

To which Trinity responded: "And what makes you think I can't answer your question when I qoute gq.org?"

Your track record of developing very few coherent points. Your faith blinders. Your lack of grammar. Your metaphysics. Your evasiveness. Your immaturity. Your insecurity. Your intellectual bankruptcy. Your unwillingness to learn. Your fallacious logic. Your lack of knowledge. Your dishonesty. Your lack of focus. Your unwillingness to process information. Your second-handedness. Your self-deception. Your mind's immense disconnect. Your fear. Your inability to remember what you've realized. Your confessional investment in the imaginary....

Forgive me if I've missed a few.

Trinity wrote: "What makes you think BB's answers are coherent?"

Reason.

Trinity wrote: "'Nature is Existence"? In others words you really don't know."

No, in other words, I just answered you: I do know.

Trinity wrote: "I really just realized van til was brilliant."

See? I was right. Didn't you claim to realize this a few posts ago? Did you forget that you realized this already?

Trinity wrote: "By the way is it ok if I lie to you?"

I suggest you first quit lying to yourself before you begin asking others if it's okay to lie to them.

Ydemoc

October 09, 2011 7:57 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 09, 2011 8:01 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

Reminds me, ever going to apologize to Ydemoc for threatening him? The Luke 13 passage.

October 09, 2011 8:02 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Inspector Gadget,

So, instead of answering my questions you resort to personal attacks. That says it all.


So, Gadget, is it ok if I lie to you?

By the way, and maybe it's because your drowsy, but notice.

First I said "I realized" then later I said "I really realized"

See the difference?


Another thing that's interesting is you claim that the
two natures of Christ are "contradictory" but you don't even know what a nature is.

Here is something for you:

What's the definition of reality?

October 09, 2011 8:03 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Captain America,

What makes you think I threatened Gadget?

October 09, 2011 8:06 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

I wonder if Trinity values you, me, and Dawson like he does his closest relatives or companion?

What do you say, Trinity. Do you love us? How much do you love us? Would you give your life for us? Can you see yourself going on with your life without us?

Ydemoc

October 09, 2011 8:07 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide asks

"Captain America,

What makes you think I threatened Gadget?"

funny I can understand this sentence without presupposing either implicitly or explicitly the concept god, but I sure have to presuppose implicitly the concepts existence and identity.

October 09, 2011 8:11 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Gadget,

Of course I love you and Dawson, CA, AJ.

But it's not the kind of love you are thinking about.

Love is not simply a feeling. In Fact God is love.

The act of the Father sending the son to lay his life down for his friends is the greatest act of love ever seen.

I don't need to die or can't die for you I can't atone for you sins.

However, if you are one of God's chosen there is one that has died for you already. The man Jesus Christ.

Gadget enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-JHfXVlkik&feature=youtube_gdata_player


CA,


It's interesting because God is existence. See why you are a Christian?

October 09, 2011 8:40 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity had written: "And what makes you think I can't answer your question when I qoute gq.org?"

I responded with: "Your track record of developing very few coherent points. Your faith blinders. Your lack of grammar. Your metaphysics. Your evasiveness. Your immaturity. Your insecurity. Your intellectual bankruptcy. Your unwillingness to learn. Your fallacious logic. Your lack of knowledge. Your dishonesty. Your lack of focus. Your unwillingness to process information. Your second-handedness. Your self-deception. Your mind's immense disconnect. Your fear. Your inability to remember what you've realized. Your confessional investment in the imaginary.... Forgive me if I've missed a few."

Trinity then wrote: "So, instead of answering my questions you resort to personal attacks. That says it all."

These characteristics that I have listed *are my answer*, for they describe the reasons why I think you are unable to answer questions posed to you without resorting to apologetic websites. The fact that you would answer the way you did only underscores how accurate my assessment is.

Trinity wrote: "So, Gadget, is it ok if I lie to you?"

I've answered this already. Deal with the answer I gave, then perhaps our exchange can move forward. Until then, you are wasting your words.

Trinity wrote: "By the way, and maybe it's because your drowsy, but notice. First I said "I realized" then later I said "I really realized" See the difference?

I see (and saw) the word "really," but I fail to see a difference in meaning. In fact, saying "really realized" only muddles communication, since it's redundant. It also indicates you didn't realize it before, even though you maintained you did. It's this type sloppiness that prompted me to list the characteristics that I did.

Trinity wrote: "Another thing that's interesting is you claim that the two natures of Christ are "contradictory" but you don't even know what a nature is."

Sure I do. And what you've written here is characteristic of your track record: resorting to equivocation on the concept "nature;" lack of charity in our exchange; and your presumptuousness.

Trinity wrote: "Here is something for you: What's the definition of reality?"

Reality is the realm of existence.

Ydemoc

October 09, 2011 8:47 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Of course I love you and Dawson, CA, AJ. But it's not the kind of love you are thinking about."

What kind of love was I thinking about?

Trinity wrote: "Love is not simply a feeling."

Where has any rational person affirmed this?

Trinity wrote: "In Fact God is love."

What about Blarko?

Trinity wrote: "The act of the Father sending the son to lay his life down for his friends is the greatest act of love ever seen."

Blarko didn't need to send his son to die for mankind. I would say that's a greater act of love.

Trinity wrote: "I don't need to die or can't die for you I can't atone for you sins."

If you love us, wouldn't you do anything for us? Wouldn't you lay down your life for your friends?

Trinity wrote: "However, if you are one of God's chosen there is one that has died for you already. The man Jesus Christ."

Blarko says this isn't so.

Ydemoc

October 09, 2011 8:55 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Gadget,

Your unwillingness to answer my question about lying to you says it all.

So, lying is moral and immoral at the same time. Isn't this a contradiction?


By the way thanks for confirming God's existence.
Since he is real he must exist and this is by you're own definition.

October 09, 2011 9:03 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Gadget,

Notice how you have to appeal to the imaginary to respond
to my answer.

Van Til must be smiling down from heaven.

October 09, 2011 9:08 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Your unwillingness to answer my question about lying to you says it all."

I answered your question. You just didn't like my answer.

Trinity wrote: "So, lying is moral and immoral at the same time. Isn't this a contradiction?"

When have I maintained this? I maintain a quite different view: That lying is moral and immoral at different times and in different respects. There is no contradiction whatsoever. Life, is the standard of value. If someone wants to take what I value from me, and I lie to them to keep them from doing so, that is moral.

I have already given you examples in my previous comments -- examples that you have failed to address, either through your ineptness in reading comprehension, your blindness due to your faith, or some other reason. So let me spell it out for you again:

At different times and in different respects lying can be highly moral: For example, if Anne Frank is hiding in my house, and I tell the Nazis that she is not there, that is moral.

If my wife lies to a rapist, and tells him that she has herpes when she doesn't, causing the rapist to flee, that is moral.

If I were to knock on the door of Osama Bin Laden's compound, posing as a cable repair man and saying that I was there to fix the tv, but instead, double-tapped with bullets right between the eyes, that is moral.

You, however, will find it very difficult upholding your so-called biblical morality in these and other instances. For you hold that some being in another dimension serves as your standard of truth, and any lying you do, whether it's to save something or someone of value to you, is immoral. Would you tell the truth, that Anne Frank was in the attic if the Nazis came and asked? Or would you lie?

Trinity wrote: "By the way thanks for confirming God's existence.
Since he is real he must exist and this is by you're own definition."

This doesn't follow from what I wrote. Furthermore, it doesn't even hold up on it's own. If god is real, but god created reality, does this mean that god created himself? For how could you assert something real (god) logically prior to there being reality? Existence comes first, then the recognition or awareness of that which is real.

(continued)

October 09, 2011 11:19 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This is where your bible's lack of concept theory and it's utter silence on the fact that man's knowledge is hierarchical in nature (built from the ground up; i.e, from existence on up) fails you. Your "stolen concept" of "god is real" only confirms the bankruptcy of your metaphysics. You have no foundation. It is all built upon imagination. The mystics who wrote the bible simply jumped in, midstream, and co-opted these concepts in order to posit that which is imaginary. And you have joined them. And I suspect it was all done out of fear.

But you don't see this, because faith commitment and your confessional investment have blinded you, and diminished your ability to reason in accordance with the facts of reality.

Trinity wrote: "Notice how you have to appeal to the imaginary to respond to my answer."

How do you know that Blarko is imaginary? How do you know that Allah is imaginary? How do you know that Zeus is imaginary? What can you appeal to, to help us understand how you know that these gods are imaginary but yours isn't? Faith? What if someone says they have faith in their respective god? What then? An appeal to your storybook? Well, they will just appeal to their storybook. What then? An inner sense? Well, they will just appeal to their inner sense. What then? What is it that makes your storybook better than theirs, a truth or a fact when theirs isn't? Will you appeal to your brand of reason? A brand of reason that is really an extension of your faith, which comes from our storybook, that posits the god you worship? Other believers in different gods will do the same thing. What then? There is one thing you could appeal to, but you won't find what your looking for there, for it doesn't exist in the imagination. Remember now, you have to do this without appealing to your storybook, because believers in other gods could do the very same thing and appeal to their storybook, and that wouldn't get them nor you anywhere, would it? Can you do it? Can you tell us all how you know Blarko doesn't exist?

Ydemoc

October 09, 2011 11:19 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Gadget,

Before I respond to your other claims.

Here are some questions:

Is it ok if I lie to you?

Can you give me a definiton and description of blarko, allah, zeus,?

October 10, 2011 6:15 AM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

Nide, until you can answer our questions without fallacious answers you are not going to change anyone's mind. So why do you keep posting? To keep us laughing? Because that's all your posts are good for.

October 10, 2011 7:18 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Blarko is a Wonderbeing. Blarko didn't create just this universe, but all other universes that we humans don't have access to. Blarko created everything and then some.

This universe is just one of many that he created. He created all the minor deities that men in this and other universes worship.

Blarko didn't create this and other universes by speaking or thinking. He just did it. He didn't have to speak or think, for those actions are what the lesser gods would do. And Blarko has more power than all the other gods men believe in, combined.

Blarko did not have a son, and Blarko is not a three-in-one deity – Blarko is “infinitune,” not “triune.” Moreover, Blarko’s self-revelation is contained in The Wonder, not “the Scriptures.”

Blarko didn't need to create a son, and send him to die for man's sinful nature. All men have to do is believe in Blarko and their sins will be wiped away.

Non-Blarkists suppress the evidence for Blarko’s existence. Evidence of Blarko’s existence is all around us, but the reason why you don’t believe is because you suppress that evidence, you don’t want to believe... if you want objective proof of Blarko: since the very concept of proof is dependent on Blarko, the proof that Blarko exists is that without Blarko, you couldn’t prove anything.

Blarko is the Wonderbeing and recognizes deep down that Blarko sets the terms for the scientist’s discovery of... facts. I could even say that the scientist’s affirmation that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

When one wonders about Blarko, one is transformed by his love.

If you don't believe in Blarko, or deny his existence, this will cause his love for you to leave you. And you will stop wondering. You will also suffer great pain after you die.

Much of what Blarko does is a mystery. But He controls everything in this universe and all other universes.

All other religions are against Blarko. They are evil. To believe in any other religion but Blarkoism will have dire consequences.

...Blarko exists everywhere. The reason no one sees Blarko is because Blarko is an example of "immaterial existence," so it would be foolish to expect to be able to see Blarko. Unbelievers in Blarko are stupid by saying that Blarko is only in the imagination.

Love for Blarko is the beginning of knowledge. Blarko is love. But also Blarko much, much more than love, for there is even something more powerful than love, which those of us who place our trust in Blarko, will find out about once we are with Blarko in Blarko Heaben.

Blarko Heaben is a place of bliss-- and not just eternal bliss, but beyond eternal bliss. Human concepts do not do Blarko Heaben justice.

Blarko Heaven will make lesser deities' heavens that men foolishly believe in, seem like torture in comparison. In fact, Blarko's place for those who do not believe in him is called Heaven.

Note: I want to thank Dawson for opening my eyes and my heart to Blarko. Most of what is written above are his words, thank Blarko!)

I've answered your question, Trinity. Now would you care to tell me how you know that Blarko is imaginary without appealing to your storybook?

Blarkings.

Ydemoc

October 10, 2011 8:00 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Indiana Jones,


I love fence sitters. Jump in.


It's up to God to change your mind. I said this already.

October 10, 2011 8:07 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide
Ydemoc said.... "This is where your bible's lack of concept theory and it's utter silence on the fact that man's knowledge is hierarchical in nature (built from the ground up; i.e, from existence on up) fails you."

This directly relates to what I was saying concerning epistemology and the fundamental (axiomatic) nature of the concepts existence and identity. They along with consciousness are at the base of the hierarchy. They and not the concept god if it is even a concept are the cognitive preconditions to thought. As I pointed out earlier to even describe god one would need to employ all three concepts. Does god exist? there we have existence conceptually presupposed even in asking the question regardless of how we answer it. Next is god god? We have to know this to speak intelligently about topic for otherwise what is it that we are discussing, thus we presuppose the concept identity. Lastly is god a volitional being that makes decisions. If the bible is anything to go by then the answer is yes. Thus to discuss god we would also have to presuppose the concept consciousness. Back when I was a child of 6 I first learned of god. In order for the child I once was to have integrated the concept god I would already have had to implicitly used the concepts existence, identity and consciousness, even if I could not yet conceptually identify them explicitly. No one is begging the question in using these 3 fundamental concepts unless they try to “account for them” in some fashion like claiming god is a precondition for them. If they try such tactics they are actually committing the stolen concept fallacy for these 3 very same concepts have to be presupposed in every thought and deed.

So Nide can you describe god without implicitly using the concepts existence, identity and consciousness? If not you should do the honorable thing and retract you charge of circular reasoning.

@everyone

See this is what happens when presuppositionalism an attempt at foundationalist logic comes up against objecitvism a foundatiionalist logic that actually has an argument. That identifies and isolates the actual preconditions for syllogistic logic. And what happens, the persupper keeps throwing out bahnsen’s POOF over and over. Oh well what else can a conformist do when his paradigm has a catastrophic confrontation with reality.

October 10, 2011 8:08 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Gadget,

Can you provide a source for blarko's revelation like his writings etc.?

Dawson already admitted blarko is part of his imagination.

So, are you in disagreement with him?

October 10, 2011 8:12 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide
Blarko has chosen only to reveal himself now to certain chosen people. We will write his Divine text, and we will be divinely inspired to write the one true god Blarkos message. Nide if you want me to arbitrarily accept one set of claims why not any other set of arbitary claims?

October 10, 2011 8:19 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

In answer to you post directed at AJ

if only god can change my mind and assumimg he wants me to change my mind, but wont because he wants me to chose so of my own free will, then I have a suggestion.

God, take Nide away, he is not doing your cause any good...

Of course I can only imagine god so I can only imagine that god will hear my suggestion.

October 10, 2011 8:29 AM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

http://bahnsenburner.blogpsot.com/

copy and paste that into your browser....has anyone else seen that? I find it really hilarious.

October 10, 2011 10:11 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity asked: "Can you provide a source for blarko's revelation like his writings etc.?"

As Justin writes: "Blarko has chosen only to reveal himself now to certain chosen people. We will write his Divine text, and we will be divinely inspired to write the one true god Blarkos message."

Yes, brother Justin, praise Blarko for moving you to write such a response to those who refuse recognize Blarko's presence in their heart.

Let us both wonder for Trinity, and ask Blarko to lift the shades from his eyes and soften his sinful heart. For he has followed other false, lowly gods, who resorted to inferior methods, such as writing, to reveal their supposed truth. And he has been deceived into thinking they exist, when they do not. The time is short for him. May he welcome Blarko into his life so that Blarko may work wonders on him as he has on us. Yeomen.

You see, Blarkoists do not need to resort to writing things down, for the truth of Blarko is implanted in our hearts and in all the hearts of all men. Writing things down is something humans do. As Justin said, we may eventually write things down, as a record of how men denied Blarko, and we may write down what we think of Blarko and how he impacts our lives, and how all others need to do is believe in him and not deny him; but all this is really just superfluous, for men already know about Blarko without any writings. For Blarko is present in everything that exists and even beyond everything that exists, and even beyond that.

The men who resorted to pen and parchment to write down things about other gods, their false gods, showed how wrong they were about those gods by having to write it down. If their gods existed and were truly as powerful and loving as Blarko is, then they wouldn't have had to write anything down. Writing things down like they did was just their way of deceiving other men into not believing in Blarko. For Blarko tells me in my heart that many men are led astray by the workings of such earthly wisdom and writings.

Trinity wrote: "Dawson already admitted blarko is part of his imagination. So, are you in disagreement with him?"

What Dawson, a human being, has admitted or not admitted is irrelevant to this particular discussion about Blarko, because whether Dawson knows it or not, Blarko controls everything that happens. And whether I disagree with him or not is also irrelevant, for Blarko has given me the truth in my heart that he is using Dawson as a way to open the eyes and soften the hearts of all Blarko deniers.

Besides, believers in Blarko know that what's important is that we can all disagree, but never divide, which is what some human believers in lesser gods have done. These believers in lesser gods have not only disagreed and divided, but they have killed one another over their written doctrine. This is another reason why Blarko doesn't write things down. And that's just one of the ways that we Blarkoists can tell that other lesser religions are false, from the fact that they had to write it down for others to read. Blarko does not need to use the very human and inferior method of reading and writing to get humans to understand his wisdom. He needs no words to explain himself to humans, for no words really can. Humans already have everything necessary to recognize Blarko without such silly things as words or speech.

Let us wonder... Oh, Blarko, may your will work wonders on all deniers of you. I wonder that you change their minds and hearts like you have changed mine. Yeomen.

Blarkings.

********************

Now would you care to tell me how you know that Blarko is imaginary without appealing to your storybook?


Ydemoc

October 10, 2011 10:58 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

man for a minute there I thought I was reading a post from Nide :D

@Nide

So now I have two arbitrary claims, one for jesus, one for blarko. Unfortantly for me sense both are arbitrary there is no none arbitrary way to tell which if either is valid. Man am I glad I am not a conformist :)

October 10, 2011 11:08 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You wrote: "man for a minute there I thought I was reading a post from Nide :D"

Yes, brother Justin, believers of lesser religions often borrow from our worldview to try and substantiate the existence of their lesser gods. But these believers in lesser gods don't realize is that even to think about borrowing from our worldview, Blarko would have to exist.

Let us wonder... Oh, Blarko, please show Trinity the way, and move him to make an attempt to show us that you are imaginary without appealing to his storybook. By making such an attempt, maybe then his heart soften enough, and he will see the errors of his ways, and welcome you into his life. Then when his life is over, we can all rejoice about it together Heaben. Yeomen.

Blarkings.

Ydemoc

October 10, 2011 11:24 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Inspector Gadget,

Asked: "Now would you care to tell me how you know that Blarko is imaginary without appealing to your storybook?"

Because Dawson said so. That settles it.

Here is the link again it's pretty hilarious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-JHfXVlkik&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Go, Gadget, Go.

Captain America,

I asked you a really important question that you quietly evaded. Here it is again:


Have you observed that every insect has six legs?

October 10, 2011 12:04 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

I had written: "Now would you care to tell me how you know that Blarko is imaginary without appealing to your storybook?"

To which Trinity replied: "Because Dawson said so. That settles it."

I'm afraid it doesn't settle anything, but instead actually raises more questions.

Since you do not take Dawson's word for it as to the fact that your god is imaginary, how is it that you know Dawson is right when he says that Blarko is merely imaginary? Can you tell me how he knows such a thing, without your appealing to your bible? Can you tell me how you know that he knows Blarko is merely imaginary? Perhaps Dawson is mistaken? How can we tell? Please explain.

Blarkings.

Ydemoc

October 10, 2011 1:19 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 10, 2011 1:19 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide
Sorry Nide, the question is fine. I said all known insects have 6 legs. However to answer your question no of course not, no one has seen all insects. I have however consulted the body of knowledge man has called the science of biology. I have a high degree of confidence in this as I understand how in principle this knowledge was acquired. I am not an empiricist, I reject the Vienna circle (logical positivism) school of thought that says the only valid knowledge is that which we can touch see etc.... However there must be some way of linking logically back to what can be touched, see etc....
I suspect at this point you are going to jump and say “see you don't know everything, therefore you know nothing!” You seem to view knowledge as this seamless whole and if any tiny part of it is in error or even that the possibility of it being in error, then all of it is in error. I on the other hand view external reality to be the final court of appeal to claims to truth. So how then are we to know if our knowledge is correct? We test it against that very same reality, constantly improving it, as it is not automatically given to us, we must earn it thru work (scientific method / logic) Now it is impossible for everyone to personally investigate everything there is to know. So we must often rely on the knowledge gained by others. If we know how they did this in practice, i.e. the scientific method we an have a degree of confidence in it. Does this mean that from time to time we are wrong, yup! Does this mean from time to time we will make decisions based on faulty information yup! Does this mean everything we know is completely and absolutely invalid, nop! Knowledge is contextual. Of course this difference between us is what I would expect when comparing a seeker of truth with a conformist.

Now to the other point

If you want to hid your 4 legged insects in what is yet to be discovered, well that's just the god of gaps, and he is always on the retreat. There are currently 900,000 known species of insects, that is estimated to be 80% of all insect species, and all of them are 6 legged according to every biology source I can find. What do you think the odds are if species of 4 legged insects were known to Jews 2,500 years ago that they would not be know to us now? Did you know there are zero known examples of fossilized 4 legged insects, that is there is zero evidence that there ever was any 4 legged insects. Now we can imagine any number of 4 legged insects you like but no one is under any obligation to disprove the arbitrary.

October 10, 2011 1:25 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

If I were to take your tactic of the conformist however I could answer thusly. Blarko has revealed to me that all of his insect creation were made with 6 legs. Sense Blarko cant lie it must be true, and I know Blarko cant lie because he told me so!

blarkings........

October 10, 2011 1:45 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

still wondering, can you describe god without implicitly using the axiomatic concepts of existence, identity and consciousness?

October 10, 2011 2:00 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@everyone

spell checker fail, LOL

earlier I said to Nide

"I get it, you think I am presupposing god by using logic. You have yet to provide syllogism for it, and until you do don't expect to be taken seriously. Nide I strongly suspect you are confusing metaphysics with entomology"

that makes it sound like I think Nide is confusing metaphysics with the study of insects! Meant to say metaphysics with epistemology. And given our lastest exchange it is just comic gold. sorry for any confusion.

October 10, 2011 2:27 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

IG,


Aked: "Since you do not take Dawson's word for it as to the fact that your god is imaginary, how is it that you know Dawson is right when he says that Blarko is merely imaginary? Can you tell me how he knows such a thing, without your appealing to your bible? Can you tell me how you know that he knows Blarko is merely imaginary? Perhaps Dawson is mistaken? How can we tell? Please explain."


By faith.


CA,

http://www.icr.org/article/does-bible-really-claim-that-insects-only-have-fou/


http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/01/26/contradictions-two-missing-legs

October 10, 2011 7:49 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 10, 2011 7:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home