The John 3:16 & 4:16 flaw?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
No. It simply means I apply the same logic process you do. I do not trust secular humanists who begin their arguments with dogmatic statements like, "There is no God," and "Miracles are a myth." Such statements cannot be scientifically proven.

So, you accuse me of not listening or considering the conclusions of people who don't think as I do, thus making the accusation that I don't listen when people say what I don't want to hear, and this somehow proves your claim? That's not only a lovely and bullshit accusation, but does absolutely nothing to substantiate your own claims. So, we're both wrong, but how does that make you right?

Again, I'll ask you to post this overwhelming preponderance of evidence that supports the fairy tales presented in the bible. You've already stated that the bible is it's own best evidence and that the evidence is there for us to see, thus implying that further evidence is unnecessary when weighed against the sorely lacking real-world evidence that does not exist to substantiate the bible.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Actually, most Christian denominations -- especially those of an evangelical bent -- get along rather well, thank-you.

And once again, your preoccupation with Nicaea is at best uninformed. Mormon theology contradicts biblical theology. You can dance around it all you like and uphold your beloved Mormon prophets all you please, but at the end of the day the LDS Church does not teach the Jesus of the Bible. Therefore, you continue to find yourselves unacknowledged in the evangelical community.

Lol, we'de love to be acknowledged as Christians, but who ever said anything about evangelicals? Anyway, we're off subject. We're supposed to be talking about John 3:16 and John 14:16 right now.

We can continue this conversation in the Mormon thread if you so desire.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, you accuse me of not listening or considering the conclusions of people who don't think as I do, thus making the accusation that I don't listen when people say what I don't want to hear, and this somehow proves your claim? That's not only a lovely and bullshit accusation, but does absolutely nothing to substantiate your own claims. So, we're both wrong, but how does that make you right?

Again, I'll ask you to post this overwhelming preponderance of evidence that supports the fairy tales presented in the bible. You've already stated that the bible is it's own best evidence and that the evidence is there for us to see, thus implying that further evidence is unnecessary when weighed against the sorely lacking real-world evidence that does not exist to substantiate the bible.

I would love to respond to your first paragraph, but I am having some difficulty unwinding it. You seem to have taken offense, though I'm not sure why. I simply said that scholars who come to the table with their conclusions already determined, should not be received as valid critical sources. As I understand it, this is the point you have made about Christian scholars, and it is the point I would thus make about humanist scholars. And here I thought I was being fair minded.... 😛

As to my presenting the internal literary evidence in support of the New Testament canon, the very wording of your second paragraph makes your challenge unanswerable. When you make biased predications that the Bible contains fairytales, you let the cat go flying right out of the bag. You are not an honest broker. You are not an objective critical thinker. You begin with the assumption that the contents of the New Testament are bogus, and therefore it is impossible to enter into an intelligent debate with you. It's a waste of time...and my time is too valuable to waste.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I would love to respond to your first paragraph, but I am having some difficulty unwinding it. You seem to have taken offense, though I'm not sure why. I simply said that scholars who come to the table with their conclusions already determined, should not be received as valid critical sources. As I understand it, this is the point you have made about Christian scholars, and it is the point I would thus make about humanist scholars. And here I thought I was being fair minded.... 😛

As to my presenting the internal literary evidence in support of the New Testament canon, the very wording of your second paragraph makes your challenge unanswerable. When you make biased predications that the Bible contains fairytales, you let the cat go flying right out of the bag. You are not an honest broker. You are not an objective critical thinker. You begin with the assumption that the contents of the New Testament are bogus, and therefore it is impossible to enter into an intelligent debate with you. It's a waste of time...and my time is too valuable to waste.

Sure, blame it on my "wording", rather than blaming it on the total lack of substantial evidence you have to post that won't be easily countered by an actual lack of evidence. It's fun to hide behind accusations of offense or anger, but they are a poor substitute for actually having anything to say, which you apparently don't.

My first paragraph is a simple thing to understand, just like my second. You are basing your lack of response on your accusation that I only listen to what I want to hear, and that somehow bolsters your claims? It doesn't, and again, you have wasted your chance to post anything in the way of actual evidence. Perhaps you'll do as much sooner or later.

There's nothing "fair-minded" about saying "I only listen to what I want, just like you!" and assuming that acts as actual evidential support for one's position.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I would love to respond to your first paragraph, but I am having some difficulty unwinding it. You seem to have taken offense, though I'm not sure why. I simply said that scholars who come to the table with their conclusions already determined, should not be received as valid critical sources. As I understand it, this is the point you have made about Christian scholars, and it is the point I would thus make about humanist scholars. And here I thought I was being fair minded.... 😛

Originally posted by Tim Rout
As to my presenting the internal literary evidence in support of the New Testament canon, the very wording of your second paragraph makes your challenge unanswerable. When you make biased predications that the Bible contains fairytales, you let the cat go flying right out of the bag. You are not an honest broker. You are not an objective critical thinker. You begin with the assumption that the contents of the New Testament are bogus, and therefore it is impossible to enter into an intelligent debate with you. It's a waste of time...and my time is too valuable to waste.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
No. It simply means I apply the same logic process you do. I do not trust secular humanists who begin their arguments with dogmatic statements like, "There is no God," and "Miracles are a myth." Such statements cannot be scientifically proven.

Now then, have I come to trust the research of PhDs who also believe the Bible and love Jesus? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. It depends on the quality of their work. I'm just a regular person like you are. I have only my own mind to think with, and like every reasonable person, I have to evaluate my sources rationally. Me trusting scientists who espouse an atheistic philosophy, would be as silly as you basing a belief in God on my word alone. Again...it's about handling the evidence logically.

As far as I know, the logical validity of any argument exists independently of the person making the argument. If the stupidest person in the world recites a logical proof written by Plato or Einstein, that does not make the proof invalid.

Originally posted by Jbill311
As far as I know, the logical validity of any argument exists independently of the person making the argument. If the stupidest person in the world recites a logical proof written by Plato or Einstein, that does not make the proof invalid.

So, what would you say is his "logical validity"?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I am unconvinced about evolution because I do not trust secular humanists to properly interpret the evidence. I also believe that Christian who propose Theistic Evolution are making unjustified compromises. That said, I specialize in systematic theology. For creation science I would point you toward specialists like Dr. Steve Austin.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7796171740936188298&q=answers+in+genesis&total=295&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Regarding your second premise: The core of my belief system is a person, Jesus Christ. I came to know Jesus through the message of the Bible. I came to believe the Bible because the internal evidence contained in the New Testament led me to conclude the message of the New Testament is believable. I know you want me to say "it's all just a leap of faith", but that would be a lie. If we objectively apply the same standards of analysis to the Gospels, for example, that we would apply to other ancient literature (like Homer's Iliad), then one can only conclude that the Gospels are not myth, not epic, not midrash, and by no means propagandistic pseudonymous fiction. They are, in fact, exactly what they claim to be. Biographies.

That is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Please provide your extraordinary proof. ...And try to make it short...

Originally posted by Tim Rout
No. It simply means I apply the same logic process you do. I do not trust secular humanists who begin their arguments with dogmatic statements like, "There is no God," and "Miracles are a myth." Such statements cannot be scientifically proven.

Now then, have I come to trust the research of PhDs who also believe the Bible and love Jesus? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. It depends on the quality of their work. I'm just a regular person like you are. I have only my own mind to think with, and like every reasonable person, I have to evaluate my sources rationally. Me trusting scientists who espouse an atheistic philosophy, would be as silly as you basing a belief in God on my word alone. Again...it's about handling the evidence logically.

Do you believe in god because of faith?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Between 20 and 30 billion people..... 😄

😮 Did I say trillion?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😮 Did I say trillion?

Maybe you did; but it doesn't disprove your point.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😮 Did I say trillion?

😆

Don't sweat it, bro. I was being a jerk just for shits and giggles.

Originally posted by Devil King
Maybe you did; but it doesn't disprove your point.

Yeah...what this guy said. 👆

Originally posted by dadudemon
😆

Don't sweat it, bro. I was being a jerk just for shits and giggles.

Yeah...what this guy said. 👆

😄 I didn't take it wrong. 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😄 I didn't take it wrong. 😉

I wouldn't expect a nice Buddhist like you to lose his cool anytime soon of that...I just wanted you to be sure that it was jest on my part.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I wouldn't expect a nice Buddhist like you to lose his cool anytime soon of that...I just wanted you to be sure that it was jest on my part.

So, what of the planet being 4.5 billion years old v. 6000 years old?

Originally posted by Devil King
So, what of the planet being 4.5 billion years old v. 6000 years old?

Since I have said this before on three separate occasions....I believe that God created the Universe over the course of billions of years.

Edit: Any body who believes otherwise is mistaken.

Double Edit: In the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants, it says that the Earth has a temporal existance of 6000 years. That's obviously wrong...unless of course it is a misinterpretation on what that is really supposed to mean. (I figure that God's dispensation with man is 6000 years old. Maybe he wanted man to reach a certain intellectual point before he indoctrinated them.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since I have said this before on three separate occasions....I believe that God created the Universe over the course of billions of years.

Edit: Any body who believes otherwise is mistaken.

Double Edit: In the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants, it says that the Earth has a temporal existance of 6000 years. That's obviously wrong...unless of course it is a misinterpretation on what that is really supposed to mean. (I figure that God's dispensation with man is 6000 years old. Maybe he wanted man to reach a certain intellectual point before he indoctrinated them.)

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ill let you in on a lil secret: (whispers VERY quietly) we've found evidence that humans have been alive for 25-50 thousand years

ZOMG!!!

And this whole time I thought we lived at the most a little over 120 years.

Smart ass for the win.

😂

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since I have said this before on three separate occasions....I believe that God created the Universe over the course of billions of years.

Edit: Any body who believes otherwise is mistaken.

Double Edit: In the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants, it says that the Earth has a temporal existance of 6000 years. That's obviously wrong...unless of course it is a misinterpretation on what that is really supposed to mean. (I figure that God's dispensation with man is 6000 years old. Maybe he wanted man to reach a certain intellectual point before he indoctrinated them.)

Then, why doesn't it say so in the bible, or in the book of mormon, if they are the infallible word of god?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Please provide your extraordinary proof. ...And try to make it short...

Do you believe in god because of faith?

Do I believe in God because of faith? No. I believe in God because of the evidence. I have entered into a relationship with God by faith. But that faith stands on the firm foundation of the Bible.

And I disagree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All claims require reasonable evidence. I cited my source. Go deal with him.

Short enough for you? 🙂 😛 🙂