GOD

Presuppositional apologetics:

Logic itself depends on a being whose bright idea on getting the Egyptians to let the Israelites emigrate was to kill all the firstborn of the country to intimidate the fellow who controlled emigration policy instead of just killing HIM.

So what was before the big bang? Quantum Foam? Lmao! You do not know? So matter and energy must have created itself? How? Some idiots on this feed claim matter and energy is eternal.
The word “before” did not apply prior to the initial expansion of the singularity because that is also when time became operational. Of course water was created where did it come from?

Water is co-eternal with God. He divided them with a firmament he called Heaven (Genesis 1:7), then divided the waters below to create land, which he called Earth (Genesis 1:10). If you say the waters were part of the Earth he created in Genesis 1:1 then there’s two Earths.

---

Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways to Prove the Existence of God: The First Way: Motion. The Second Way: Efficient Cause. The Third Way: Possibility and Necessity. The Fourth Way: Gradation. The Fifth Way: Design.

1. An unmoved mover violates the law of reciprocal action.

2. Radioactive decay is uncaused.

3. Conservation laws point to mass-energy being necessary rather than contingent.

4. The best item of a set may not be objectively good.

5. Evolution presents a simulacrum of design.

---

God brought it up with Adam because Adam is the head of the house; the dominion on the Earth. The point was that Eve was deceived and Adam was not. That point determines competency.

If Adam was not deceived then he sinned willingly, while Eve only sinned through error. Yet Paul treats Eve’s sin the greater.

---

The human mind may perceive truth only through thinking, as is clear from Augustine.

Aquinas (Q32 A1 O3): “I answer that, It is impossible to attain to the knowledge of the Trinity by natural reason.”

---

“To be united to God in unity of person was not fitting to human flesh, according to its natural endowments, since it was above its dignity; nevertheless, it was fitting that God, by reason of His infinite goodness, should unite it to Himself for man’s salvation.” – Aquinas

The fun part is when Aquinas explains how the union of divinity and human flesh can be possible with a God who by nature cannot change.

The Ontological Argument

---

Hell is full of people who worked tirelessly to get there. Don’t blame GOD. HE provided a way out. Repent, Jesus can redeem your soul!

For hell to exist for infinite time, God must work tirelessly to supply infinite energy, otherwise hell will just burn out. So God does his part too, see?

---

There is no conflict between science and the Bible

BIBLE: The first thing to appear in the universe, before any evolution, was a conscious being.

ALSO BIBLE: This being could make trillions of galaxies in the same amount of time, 24 hours, that it took him to make sea life and birds on one planet.

AGAIN BIBLE: This being pronounced everything he made as good just before a talking serpent suborned the first woman into disobedience.

ALSO BIBLE: A wind could evaporate 1.1 billion cubic miles of rainwater.

BIBLE REDUX: Dead people resurrect and float into the sky.

BIBLE ONCE MORE: This being was frightened that humans, in the stone age would build a structure, sans steel reinforcement tall enough to invade his turf in the sky.

ALSO BIBLE: Two million migrants wandered a peninsula the size of West Virginia without leaving a trace.

BIBLE HAS ONE MORE GO: The rotation of the Earth was started and stopped to provide extra hours of daylight for a battle and this was never recorded by the Egyptians nor by the Han Dynasty, neither did the friction of the still-moving interior mantle against the non-moving crust melt the crust.

---

It is impossible to obey the Law of God no one can, it is Christ in a Man that does this, that’s why we are saying let no man “boast for it is by Grace ” the Law is Holy , just and Good” we need Christ to give us power to obey . Grace to Grace we are saved.

The Law of God says it is entirely possible to obey the Law of God.

Deuteronomy 30:14 Your own book says it is entirely possible to obey it.

Deuteronomy 30:14 “But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.”

---

---

Believer: “Okay, atheist smarty-pants, where did the low entropy we’re running on ultimately come from? Whence the Past Hypothesis?”

Me: “The Big Bang scattered hydrogen uniformly throughout space, but to gravity this is like standing a pencil on its sharpened tip.”

---

> @katinka12542233
> Read again where
> Jesus explained to his
> disciples that John Baptist
> was Elijah, even his clothing
> and good similarity.

On the contrary, it is written (John 1:21): They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No.”

---

---

---

Genesis 1: “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”

Genesis 2: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Go figure. #atheism

---

---

---

> @EarlGrover3
> There are no contradictions
> in God’s holy Bible. Only if
> you take things out of
> context which you’ve done
> every time. #atheism

1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

1 John 3:19 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God…

The same epistle says two different things.

---

---

---

---

 

The modern depiction of Jesus Christ has not been updated since the days of Cesare Borgia. But fast forward a couple hundred years and Jesus will be depicted by true believers as a fat orange man in a blue suit with a big red tie and a mop of hair dyed blond.

 

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

God’s preferred denominations are:

$100
$50
$20
$10
$5
$2
$1

---

---

Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

This is how far Jesus and the devil could see if the devil took him to the highest mountain on Earth. All the kingdoms of Earth do not fit in that red circle. Jesus was not impressed with such a small offer and turned the devil down.

---

---

---

---

---

---

Aquinas’s first demonstration of God’s existence is the argument from motion. He drew from Aristotle’s observation that each thing in the universe that moves is moved by something else.

If you sit on a sled and throw bricks, your sled moves in a direction opposite from the moving bricks. This is the conservation of linear momentum. An “unmoved mover” violates this law.

---

Aquinas is getting here at per se (essentially ordered) series, and, guess what, they don’t occur through time. They occur here and now. Like gravity causing everything to fall to the ground here and now. This kind of causation is simultaneous. You might want to research more

We have detected gravitational waves with LIGO/VIRGO and confirmed they move at the speed of light. This observation rules out simultaneity and “action at a distance” for gravity. Newton suspected this when he wrote the Principia, but he didn’t know the details.

---

> Yes, I am a sinner. And
> need Christ’s ransom all
> the more. I’m like Paul in
> that I do the bad things
> when I don’t want to.

St. John says that makes you a non-Christian.

1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

---

---

---

---

---

---

 

Believers: “God is on the top of Mt. Olympus.”

Hikers: “Nope, nothing here.”

Believers: “God moved into the sky.”

Wright Brothers: “Empty skies.”

Believers: “God’s in orbit now.”

Yuri Gagarin: “I see no decadent Western god up here.”

Believers: “God moved to the planet Kolob in the exact center of the Milky Way.”

Sir Roger Penrose: “Here’s an infrared movie of the core, you can see there’s a black hole in the center shredding stars.”

Believers: “God moved to a brane that does not intersect our space-time.”

Atheists: “Brane and brane! What is brane!”

 

---

 

> Brother Desmond (Desi)
> Edward Coughlan wrote:
> Psalm 34:14 – Depart from
> evil, and do good; seek
> peace, and pursue it.

Also Bible (Matthew 10:34):

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

---

> On Monday, January 16,
> 2023 servant wrote:
> The short answer, yes #Christ
> was a historical person.

No, Yeshua son of Miriam was a historical person.

“Christ” means messiah. Messiahs don’t get nailed to crosses by the very Romans he’s supposed to thump himself.

---

---

---

---

---

---

Believer:

> The Lord isn’t really being
> slow about His promise,
> as some people think. No,
> He is being patient for
> your sake. He does not
> want anyone to be
> destroyed, but wants
> everyone to repent.

Also Lord (Mark 4):

[11] And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

[12] That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

---

> @globalexi
> The Mentally Retarded Dickheads Biden &
> Putin Fighting Satan’s Lost War For Ownership of
> Ukraine (Owned By God) DID NOT Learn ANYTHING
> From The Decades of Satan’s Lost Wars Between Israeli
> & Palestinian Leaders Fighting For Ownership of
> God’s Holy Land (Owned By God).

All the kingdoms of the Earth are owned by Satan.

Luke 4:

[5] And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world…

[6] And the devil said…All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me…

---

 

> @Philoso49014660
> Regarding Sodom though,
> don’t you think those
> verses refer to a
> firsthand personal
> experiential knowledge? It’s
> not that God doesn’t know
> what is happening in Sodom,
> it’s that he hasn’t manifested
> himself there to witness the
> sin “with his own eyes” so
> to speak.

Psalm 33:

[13] The LORD looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men.

[14] From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth.

[15] He fashioneth their hearts alike; he considereth all their works.

---

 

---

 

---

---

> @Maxfacts4
> There were one or two
> Edens in ancient times in
> the area of Mesopotamia.
> Even the Bible refers to the
> sons of Eden in 2 Kings
> 19:12.

Four rivers flowed out of Eden:

“And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia…And the fourth river is Euphrates.”

That doesn’t work geographically even accounting for the Noachide flood.

---

Can confirm. Former Lutheran who would have answered this way. My response to the general point would have been that God often uses sinful men to guide people to holiness. David and Solomon were far from exemplars

1 Kings 15:5 David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

One sin. That’s pretty exemplary. The only man with no sin was Christ himself.

 

---

 

Nah. I don’t think True Christians ™ need to be perfect.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

---

---

Which in no way contravenes free will. It was known who Pharaoh would be by his personally willed wickedness before he ever was.

God had a role in that.

Romans 9:17 ] For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

 

 

---

In my reading, the Tree of Life in Eden was the source of immortality. IOW, Adam and Eve would not made naturally immortal, per se, but had to continually eat from the Tree of Life. Being cast out from the garden meant that had no more access to the life-giving fruit -> death.

On the contrary, it is written (Rm. 5:12): “By sin death came into the world.” Therefore man was immortal before sin.

 

---

---

---

---

---

Yesterday a Calvinist told me that the option to cooperate with grace allows men to boast that they made the right decision. If a fireman escorts you out of a burning house, do you brag about following him afterwards or are you just grateful he was there to lead the way?

“The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.” — Moses, boasting after the LORD led the way out of bondage in Egypt.

 

 

---

---

Homosexuality in itself is a sin as adultery and fornication are. But mere feelings of homosexual tendencies as a result of inherent biological inclination is not sin. Sin is always something willed and therefore intended.

Will and intention do not come into it.

“While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins.” – St. Augustine, On the Epistle of John. 1,6:PL 35,1982.

---

Not having a Pope. Bergolio is not Catholic and therefore cannot be Pope.

Canon 332: The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration.

Canon 1024: A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

Conclusion: Any baptized male can be Pope.

---

The Ontological Argument

Windows Guy:

1. God is, by definition, a being greater than anything that can be imagined.

2. Existence both in reality and in imagination is greater than existence solely in one’s imagination.

3. Therefore, God must exist in reality: if God did not, God would not be a being greater than anything that can be imagined.

Linux Gal: Being imagined is not itself existence, of any sort. To say God exists in the understanding, meaning it the way you do, presupposes his existence. You are assuming your conclusion.

Windows Guy: By analogy the Mandelbrot Set does not have existence in the physical world, only in the imagination. But it can be defined and generated in such a way that anyone in the world can independently study the same features of this mathematical object that exists only in the mindscape. In the same way, when speaking of the universe’s Creator and First Cause, Who is necessarily one, the names for Him may vary but the object in the mindscape corresponding to this God, together with his attributes, is the same for all men.

Linux Gal: But God is not a possible being. Is omnipotence possible? Can god create something so indestructible that even he could not destroy it?

Windows Guy: Creating an indestructible object that can be destroyed renders the word “indestructible” of no effect.

Linux Gal: Could God create a square that has all the mathematical properties both of a square, and also of a circle?

Windows Guy: No, for the same reason God cannot produce a triangle with four sides — such an object is a parallelogram, not a triangle. It is not a limit on God’s power to be unable to do the logically incoherent.

Linux Gal: Could he have not created a world just as we have now, except where people who die of cancer at least die quickly and still meet his mysterious goals? If he were all good, wouldn’t he want to?

Windows Guy: If people died quickly of cancer, more people would die before faith healing or a miraculous remission occurred. If people die slowly of cancer, this gives more opportunities for a recovery at the expense of suffering.

Linux Gal: If something exists only in the understanding, then by definition – it isn’t. It does not exist. It is not actual. Only thoughts and memories exist in the mind. Thus, it could not have been “greater than it is”, because it “isn’t” in the first place.

Windows Guy: An oral contract exists only in the understanding of the parties involved, yet it exists, and courts will often award damages in the event of a breach.

Linux Gal: Not all things we imagine really exist. Here’s the fatal flaw in your whole argument, Windows Guy. You consider existence to be an attribute. You’re saying, “There’s this god, see, and he has to also have the property of existence, or he wouldn’t be as great as we define him to be.” But that’s a disallowed operation.  Existence is not a predicate. First you have to have something, then you can talk about what properties it has.

---

Defense attorney: “Which one of you fellows actually spent face time with Yeshua?”

Mattiyahu and Yohanan raise their hands. Marcus and Lucas sit on their own hands, remain silent, and look away to a corner of the courtroom because they know damn well their Roman asses were never anywhere near Judea.

Defense attorney: “Okay, this question is directed to the eyewitnesses. Where did you first see Yeshua after his execution?”

Mattiyahu: “Yudah of Kerioth quit, but we eleven remaining disciples went away into the Galilee region, to the west side of Lake Kinneret and this mountain near Magdala where Yeshua had designated for us to meet. There we saw him! Most of us revered him, but some doubted.”

Yohanan: “No, Mattiyahu. That was later. Only Teom doubted, remember? But only a week later he no longer did. On the first day of the week after the execution, when the doors of the room we rented in Yerushalayim were shut and locked for fear of the other Yehudim, Yeshua somehow came and stood in our midst. He said, ‘Peace be with you.'”

Mattiyahu: “Nope.”

Yohanan: “Yep.”

The Defense attorney throws up his hands.

Judge: “Case dismissed!”

---

Aquinas isn’t making a temporal argument though. Aquinas is happy to grant there could be an actual infinity of temporal moments. Aquinas is asking about sustaining causes, namely what is responsible for motion and sustained existence.

“Sustained” motion presupposes that, left alone, things naturally come to a stop. This is a vestige of Aristotle that was superseded by Newton’s conservation of momentum. “Sustained” existence has the same issue, but the energy (mass) conserved is intrinsic to the object itself.

St Thomas Aquinas proved the existence of God in the 13th century. Climate change is altogether more difficult

Aquinas: “I don’t have a pile of observations, but here’s some clever word salad proving God exists”

Christian: “Okay, I’ll buy that.”

NOAA: “We don’t have a clever word salad but here’s a hundred years of ocean temperature data proving change.”

Christian: “I don’t buy that.”

The existence of a prime mover- nothing can move itself; there must be a first mover. The first mover is called God. – Thomas Aquinas

If nothing can move itself, then God cannot move himself. If God cannot move, then he cannot perform the act of setting something in motion because that act consists of transferring motion from one thing to another.

God is not a thing. It is implicit that God is uncreated, that’s the whole question we are begging. Stating that God must have a cause is just a rephrasing of the question whether God exist. You are simply not talking about the same god.

If God is not a thing, then you make the atheists’ case and his existence is not demonstrated. If the claim is that God has a privileged status outside of the rule that something must have a cause, then by reflection God cannot also be a cause. The privilege becomes a hindrance.

Aquinas’s Third Way. Put simply, for contingent beings, that do not exist in their nature, to have continued existence, necessary existence, whose nature (essence) is to exist, must exist.

In physics we observe that certain types of matter may be created or destroyed. Still, the mass and energy associated with such matter remain unchanged in quantity after the transformation. Put simply, while matter or energy is contingent, the composite mass-energy is necessary.

I dared to question the brilliance of Augustine (from whom we received the doctrine of ‘original sin’) and Aquinas (who gave us such humdingers as the ‘argument from degree’).

The Argument from Degree:

A bachelor is summoned to a job interview on short notice. He wanders around his studio sniffing shirts in a desperate search for his least-smelly shirt, which by definition must exist. That shirt, when he finds it, is acceptable for the interview.

Aquinas’s fifth way, is the principle example I’m thinking of. It argues from the fact that natural things like a heart is directed toward pumping blood, and an acorn is directed toward becoming an oak tree. It argues from final causality to a Supreme Intelligence.

This is why most Christians can’t stand the theory of descent with variation and natural selection. Given time, organisms, without planning or forethought, adapt to become optimized for their environment. This presents a simulacrum of design.

Anselm defines God as that which nothing greater can be conceived. If you can conceive this being in your mind, it exists in your mind, if this being only exists in your mind then a greater being can be conceived, i.e. one that exists in reality, thus God must exist in reality.

What exists in the mind is only thoughts and memories. You can have thoughts of a being in your mind, but that does not imply the being exists in your mind.

Not sure I get your point. God is uncaused since he is an infinite being. Saying God needs a cause for him to exist is begging the question. If God would have a cause he would not be God.

I see. So you are arguing that God is a special case and the rules of cause and effect don’t pertain to him. But the road to Tel Aviv is also the road to Damascus. Which is to say: If God cannot be the effect of a cause, then he also cannot be the cause of an effect.

Your referring to the New Testament which is only a portion of the Bible. I’m not an atheist but the books of the Bible were written by & compiled by men. Judaism, Christianity & the Islamic faith all worship the one same God.

Are you sure it’s the same god? The god Christians worship has a son. The god Jews worship demands the shedding of the blood of animals to forgive sin and the god worshiped by Muslims does not.

Death is defined as the irreversible cessation of life. If the resurrection occurred, then the decedent did not die, by definition. At a minimum, the definition of death determines who has the burden of proof, and it is not the party that embraces the definition of the word.

Is it special pleading to say every atom except oxygen doesn’t have 8 neutrons and protons? Saying X is different from everything else in Y way isn’t special pleading.

It is special pleading when you make the case for the existence of a First Mover by postulating that everything that moves is set into motion by the motion of an antecedent until you arrive at the agent you are attempting to prove and insist that agent is neither moved nor moves.

FYI, my position is contrary to William Lane Craig’s position. I think an infinite regress into the past is possible.

If time extends to infinity in the direction of the past, and if time advances at the rate of one year per year, then there would have no upper bound on the number of years required to get to 2021, which is to say we shouldn’t be all the way up here at the end of history already.

Atheists beware! Christianity is finally “proven” true. (By an enthusiastic Christian convert known amongst our side as the “Atheist Destroyer,” no less!) Time to get our postmortem affairs in order.

Wow. Now that Christianity is proven I suppose faith is no longer required. You just read the answer right off the dial.

Romans 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Well, think about a teacher that teaches the Argument from Motion to his students. The Argument from Motion in the mind of the teacher is clearly a cause of the learning in the student, but it doesn’t have to change to change to some other argument to teach the student.

Does the Argument from Motion exists in the mind of the teacher, or does she recapitulate the Argument from Motion using a set of cues stored as memories? If anything could exist in the mind apart from thoughts and memories then Anselm’s ontological argument would be valid.

Atheism is the belief that God doesn’t exist.

Question #1: Do you believe God exists?

Question #2: Will you answer question #1?

Theist: “Yes on 1 and yes on 2.”

Atheist: “No on 1 and yes on 2.”

Agnostic: “No on 2.”

In other words “all beings” = “everything that exists.” It means the exact same thing.

Existence is substance in its actuality. Thomists claim that God’s essence is to exist, yet deny that God has substance (immaterial). So they carve out a different definition of existence for God, and subsequently equivocate when presenting their arguments for his existence.

We think when we know things what we know is immaterial because it’s universal. What a dog is is universal to all dogs, for example. So our intellect has the ability to interact with the immaterial.

The interaction is strictly one-way. For instance, the distribution of prime numbers (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37…) is immaterial and can be discovered by the intellect, but the intellect cannot re-order the primes in an act of will.

Well, Thomist think existence is an active thing, so that works anyway.

Aquinas: “Existence is that which makes every form or nature actual.” (Summa I Q.4 Art. 4).

Since Aquinas uses “essence” and “nature” interchangeably, God’s existence makes his nature (which is to exist) actual.

So you’ve got a vicious circle. Or “every” does not mean “every”.

Can you tell me how Aquinas’ Argument from Degree proves the existence of god? I bet you can’t.

The Argument from Degree says a bachelor has a least dirty shirt in his apartment, which is a tautology, but it doesn’t follow that he has a clean shirt. The being with the greatest perfection is not necessarily a being with infinite perfection.

Creationists believe there is a first cause that is eternal – either God, or the universe.

Modern cosmology says that the universe had a beginning. The bible says so too. God is the uncaused “cause” of the universe. If the universe is not eternal, it had to have a cause.

The concept of “eternity” depends on a discredited view of absolute time. Space-time (also known as the gravitational field) is part and parcel of the universe that had a beginning. It follows, then, that the universe is both finite in duration yet has also existed for all time.

I don’t even know what you mean by “Absolute Being.” Necessary Being more indicates the fact that God necessarily exists than the fact that His essence is existence.

We have discovered that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed (ie. from mass to motion). This makes the universe itself a necessary being. If you add a necessary creator being into the mix William of Ockham will “Tut tut” from on high.

I don’t even know what you mean by “Absolute Being.” Necessary Being more indicates the fact that God necessarily exists than the fact that His essence is existence.

Essence is the set of attributes pertaining to a thing (ie. a stone has the essence of hardness and weight). You claim that God has the necessary attribute of existence. However, existence itself is not an attribute. First you have a thing, then you may speak of its attributes.

Technically, the Gospels and the Epistles are corroborating accounts, but you find a way to reject it anyway. So I don’t think the number of sources has anything to do with it. And our expectations regarding what we think God would do does place a role in whether we think it…

Gospels:

“Good Master, what shall I do that I may have eternal life?”

“If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments.”

Epistles:

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

And that pretty much wraps it up for corroboration.

The Teleological Argument is actually about the per se cause of the tendency of each creature to an end. The origin of species via evolution is completely irrelevant, as evolution is a per accidens cause.

Natural selection and deep time results in the simulacrum of design. Aquatic mammals resemble fish because their form, after many reproductive iterations, is optimal for their environment. A valid argument from design must first rule out whether the design is merely apparent.

Uh, Paul describes Himself as an Apostle, so he does actually indicate that he at least received instruction from Jesus after His death, which is of course described in more detail in Luke.

Matthias was selected to replace Judas.

In Luke 22:30 Christ says, “That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Does that mean Matthias gets to boot to make room for Paul, or does it mean Paul is not an Apostle?

The argument from evil against the existence of God is unsound — the force it carries is purely emotional, not reasonable.

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” – God

“The LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth.” – Daniel

‘Nuff said.

I bet you don’t even know the most proper definition of God traditionally.

Traditionally the Hebrews were henotheists who believed in the existence of many gods, but were loyal to the god of Abraham. Then Yahweh was defeated by Marduk and the priests on the Babylonian Vacation reinvented the word to mean the lord of all, and deprecated the others.

“The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said “It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.” Huxley is wrong on that. Is that clear now?

Q. Will you answer one simple question?

Atheist: Yes Theist: Yes Agnostic: No

Q. Do you believe in the existence of God?

Atheist: No Theist: Yes Agnostic:

You’ve just generated an infinite loop problem… what is your “contingent cause” contingent on?

Girl: Why is the sky blue, Daddy?

Dad: “Air molecules scatter mostly green and blue sunlight.

Girl: “Why not red and orange sunlight?”

Dad: “It goes straight in.”

Girl: “Why does it do that?”

Dad (sighs): “God made it that way. End of subject!”

DS would never say God literally became a contingent being. But as per Brown this is exactly what the text states.

Jesus said only the Father knew the timing of the Day of the Lord, not the Son. If God the Son shared this knowledge before the incarnation, then he lost the knowledge, which only a contingent being can do. If God the Son never shared the knowledge, then the Trinity is not One.

The unity between the divine nature and the human nature occurs in the person. The divine nature and the human nature still remains distinct, and so the human nature is contingent, and the divine nature is noncontingent

This unity occurs in linear time. There was a moment when God the Son was not a person with two natures, and there was a subsequent moment when God the Son was a person with two natures. So the personhood of God is itself contingent, while the personhood of the Father is not.

Because the Woman was “touch” and infected by serpent malice, she now cannot resist the concupiscence. Do you think sexual procreation is the sin that Adam & Eve committed in the garden, a Temple of God? They defiled the Temple of God, that’s why they were cast out.

I think it was because God said the fruit was fatal within 24 hours, and Satan said the fruit was, rather, brain food, so Eve carried out a scientific experiment to find out who was lying, with Adam as a control group to rule out sex-based differences. The result: brain food.

Yes I noticed that too…if you carefully read the verses before after like you say it says the tomb Abraham bought was in Shechem when it was really in Hebron which appears to be roughly 30 miles away I dont see any way around that being simply the author of Acts made a mistake.

Christian apologists: “Hebron was called Sechem spiritually.”

Atheists: “And the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14?”

Apologists: “Jesus was called Immanuel spiritually.”

Atheists: “Wasn’t Adam and Eve supposed to die the day they ate the fruit?”

Apologists: “They died spiritually.”

“If a thing is observed to exist, that observation is evidence of the existence of that thing.” Correct. “The putative cause of that thing is a deduction, and deductions are not evidence” Logical deductions are evidence for sure.

Evidence of speciation is fertility data recorded after crossing members of two populations. When the fertility of the offspring of those crosses approaches zero, this is justification for belief in speciation. But the analytic process of coming to belief is not evidence eo ispo.

Aquinas logic in this argument is only for bypassing an infinite regress of contingent intelligent sources and to arrive at a non-contingent intelligent source.

Time is part of space-time, and space-time is the gravitational field. That means time and the universe began together. That, in turn, means infinite regress is not a problem.

“Natural Law” is nothing but a euphemism for Roman Catholic dogma. It deserves all the same epistemic respect as transubstantiation, the creepy RCC belief that communion wafers magically become the literal flesh of Jesus.

Except that we had a priest who was an alcoholic, so the diocese made him use grape juice (mustum) to consecrate along with normal wine for the rest of the congregation. He assured us it still “worked”, but if it really changed into Jesus’ blood there wouldn’t be alcohol, right?

Religion stunts its adherents’ moral growth. Rather than being able to apply moral reasoning, people like Val are taught to understand morality as pure obedience to church authority. Leaving them tragically unable to participate meaningfully in discourse surrounding moral values.

Christians reduce ethics to the contentless tribalism of a boo-hooray theory. Boo for the Forty-Niners, yay for the Seahawks. Boo for communism, yay for capitalism. Islam = evil, Christianity = good.

Well, our Lord was nailed on a wood. So, it totally makes sense why a wood-related prayer was answered that fast.

Prayer is a vestige held over from a time when men thought they could bribe their local gods to bring good weather for their crops and what-have-you. After God became “eternal” with a “perfect plan” it’s downright blasphemous to ask him to change it.

News Flash: God is the supplier of the sense of justice that atheists employ against His existence. Anonymous

God’s justice: “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.”

Atheists justice: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall exist within the United States.”

It’s as bad as theodicists who claim “God didn’t intend that slavery would be forever. He knew that we’d eventually get rid of it!”

God himself commanded that female slaves must never go free (Exodus 21:7). This isn’t a problem for Christians, because God also commanded male circumcision and no eating swine.

A true and critical review of the universe, reality, and the Bible leads to belief. Any other outcome shows a lack of understanding

Bible: Water preceded the stars by four days.

Reality: Water contains oxygen, which was cooked up from H, He, Li, and Be by Population I stars which subsequently exploded and scattered the atoms throughout space.

The Bible, at least from my point of view, is an amalgamation of different genres. Some we can take as pure fiction, while others not so much. I think the issue with both atheists and Biblical literalists is when they try to push it as all one way or the other.

Atheist: “Genesis says Eve listened to a talking snake.”

Believer: “That was pure fiction.”

Atheist: “It also says murderers must be put to death.”

Believer: “That’s a very important doctrine.”

Atheist: “But it’s the same book!”

2nd law of thermodynamics says heat death is inevitable in a long but finite amount of time.

It is guaranteed in an infinite amount of time.

1st law of thermodynamics says you can’t have light by just saying, “Let there be light.”

The universe is not eternal neither is matter and energy. The reason why you believe that is because the bible says it had a beginning. If the bible says the universe was eternal you would vehemently scream it had a beginning

If “eternal” means that something has existed across the entire domain of elapsed time, then the universe is eternal. If eternal means that there is no moment without a prior moment, then the universe is not eternal, but you have other problems.

3rd Nephi in The Book of Mormon another Testament of Jesus Christ, gives one of the most accurate descriptions of the character of Christ you can find in any scripture.

Sure. The “Prince of Peace” set Zarahemla on fire and sank Moroni into the sea. He made a volcano erupt inside Moronihah and killed thousands of people. In the Bible he flipped some tables and maybe called some people whited sepulchers but he never killed anyone.

I define nothing as nothing. I had a discussion with an Atheist, who since blocked me, and he said there’s a colloquial nothing and a scientific nothing. Quantum fluctuations are a something and nothing is still nothing.

Nothing is zero field flux at all scales, which of course is impossible because as you pin down a position with greater accuracy you know less about the field flux that exists there.

So what was before the big bang? Quantum Foam? Lmao! You do not know? So matter and energy must have created itself? How? Some idiots on this feed claim matter and energy is eternal.
The word “before” did not apply prior to the initial expansion of the singularity because that is also when time became operational.
Of course water was created where did it come from?

Water is co-eternal with God. He divided them with a firmament he called Heaven (Genesis 1:7), then divided the waters below to create land, which he called Earth (Genesis 1:10). If you say the waters were part of the Earth he created in Genesis 1:1 then there’s two Earths.

They said God doesn’t exist. They said no.

An “omniscient” god that has to call out to Adam and Eve when they hide from him, and has to go to Sodom to see how bad it is there, and has to make Abram almost kill his son to see if he really is loyal to him, that god doesn’t exist by the law of non-contradiction.

So basically you don’t even know why you exist? Is there a possibility there is a God? Yes organisms reproduce but their are limits to variation.

As I indicated, there is no possibility that a god with the simultaneous attributes of omniscience (Psalm 147:5) and contingent knowledge (Genesis 18:21) exists. It is ruled out by the most fundamental law of logic:

∄ (A & ¬ A)

How can you rule out the God of the bible? You cannot prove he doesn’t exist. There is a possibility God does exist. There is zero possibility something can create itself.

Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

Hosea 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not…

There does not exist a thing with an attribute in conjunction with its own negation.

You scoff at the bible but you don’t have the foggiest idea why you even exist. Everything just made itself.

Atheist: “The Bible says there’s windows in the sky that open to let it rain.”

Believer: “Where?”

Atheist: “Genesis 7:11”

Believer: “No way, it doesn’t really mean that.”

Atheist: “Okay, but it literally says that.”

Believers: “The problem is you don’t believe the Bible.”

What evidence do you want? If you can’t see the evidence of a Creator from the creation, then there is no point proving anything . You’re literally delusional to think the complexity of creation would have come to be without an intelligent mind. Creation in itself is the evidence

Principio Principii, or Begging the Question. You assume the conclusion as one of the premises. First demonstrate that reality is a creation and not itself extant across the entire domain of elapsed time.

No, that abomination of desolation refers to the falling of the temple in 70AD. The Jews have nothing to do with end time events. The Jews were cut off. The mark of the beast will be forced Sunday worship like the Bible heavily alludes to. The view of dispensationalism futurism

An abomination that makes desolate is to set up an idol in the temple, which was done by the Selducid king in 174 BCE. The Romans didn’t even bother to do that, they just burned the whole temple down.

Every nation that has embraced atheism has become a mass murdering tyranny. Every one.

Atheists/secularists in the west push for the murder of innocent babies in the womb, I am a recovering empiricist (a stripe of atheism) and it will always lead to insanity.

But telepathically telling an invisible man that you accept him as your Lord and Savior because if you don’t he will torture you for all eternity for being the descendant of a rib-woman who ate a magic fruit at the behest of a talking snake, why, that’s the epitome of sanity.

“Like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a lamb that is silent before her shearers, he did not open his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7). His silence is praised because there was no “deceit in his mouth” (Isaiah 53:9)

Sure. Silence. Mark 14:61-62 – Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Everything from God must be good

Judges 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.

“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”

Isaiah 53:7

Pilate therefore said unto him, “Art thou a king then?” Jesus opened his mouth and answered, “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”

---

---

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

Isaiah 53:7 NIV

Pilate asked, “Art thou a king?”

Jesus opened his mouth and answered, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”

 

 

---

 

 

---

I argue that apocalypse characterizes the most popular religiously-interested literature in the contemporary period, the Left Behind series, but also the politics of the Christian Right. But the most important aspects are *not* End Times. /3

After God failed to wrap up history during the first generation after Christ there was a 90-degree pivot whereby the Kingdom of God was located permanently above, rather than horizontally at the end of history. The Left Behind mindset represents an attempt to reverse that pivot.

It’s IMPOSSIBLE to follow every law in the BIBLE, because they contradict each other.

Jesus, Matthew 19:17: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Paul, Galatians 5:4: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

it truly seems (no pun intended) that St. Matthew created a literary seam between the end of the Writings (Chronicles) and the beginning of the Gospels (i.e. his Gospel!) This isn’t something Matthew just made up, rather because he knew he was writing the first book of the NT…

Mark was the first gospel written. In 6:5 he presents a difficulty (Jesus can do no mighty work in Nazareth) which is softened in Matthew (because of their unbelief) as scribes frequently do when dealing with a problematic source. This also occurs with Jesus’ teaching on divorce.

---

---

“The Lord Jesus never lied.

“‘You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come’…However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.” (Jesus, John 7:8,10)

Aquinas simply proposes that the energy came from God; however, Hawking proposes that the universe created itself from nothing because it needed to. Both proposals are rooted in FAITH.

When atheists hold that energy is eternal due to Emmy Noether’s theorem of time translation symmetry this is supported by observation.

When Christians hold that there was no energy in the distant past, requiring an explanation for it’s existence now, this is supported by faith.

Irreducible complexity also kills a survival of the fittest evolution, among other things.

The Mullerian Two Step kills irreducible complexity:

Three stones roll into a line to form a primitive bridge. A log gets wedged against them to improve it. The log ends get trampled into the banks. The stones roll away. The bridge remains, puzzling travelers how it came to be.

Aquinas proofs have all been debunked. All they get us to is “a cause”.

Aquinas assumes time is different from that which comes into existence. No matter whether time extends to the infinite past or whether time began at a certain moment, there remains no moment for a cause to exist as the predecessor of time.

Why won’t people get Aquinas’s point? Things that are not self explanatory cannot terminate a regress of causes.

Does evil terminate in human free will or does it regress back to this first cause?

If humans are the cause of evil, then more than one self-explanatory thing exists.

If God is the cause of evil, then his punishment of evildoers is an injustice.

The Bible says that Gods judgements are unknowable and his ways are untraceable. What I can glean from scripture is that God created everything for his glory. So, this is the honest best answer I can give.

So he did it to show off. He did it so everyone could know that he could do it. If a woman wrote the Bible God would say, rather, “I put Jupiter out there to keep comets from smacking into the Earth, and I put a big moon there to stabilize the Earth’s axis because I love yo

In classical theism, God is not part of the world. God is the creator, the world is the creation. The creator is not just the starter of everything, but that which holds it in being, all matter and time and energy.

In physics, anything which can be observed is part of the world. You can exclude God from the world, but you have to admit he is not observable, even in principle.

---

---

Hey atheists, you know how annoyed we get when a creationist asks, “If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?” That’s how theists feel when we ask, “If everything has a cause, then what caused God?” Both questions are category errors

It is not a category error if (1) every thing has a cause and (2) God is in the set of all things. Believers usually avoid this dilemma by pleading that God is excluded from the set of all things

God talk is not about the contents of the world, what does or does not exist, hard truth claims. It’s about what we do with life, what we make of the world, and how we relate to it. It’s poetry more than science. If you don’t care for poetry, that’s fine

I love poetry, unless the poetry is used to set science curricula in public schools and to keep me from getting hitched to my gal.

St. Thomas Aquinas, for centuries, was considered the great Doctor of the Church. No pope, no council have ever said the opposite, but today, in the progressive and modernist church, increasingly pro-Protestant, we study Thomas Aquinas less and less.

“That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell.” ― St. Thomas Aquinas, torture porn enthusiast.

This is powerful. This is true. Bible says Jesus found favour with God and Man Whilst luck finds us, we usually find favour that’s why you hear ‘and so so found favour…’ in scripture. It all makes sense. Thanks Pastey!

Luke 2:52 “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.”

God the Son 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 in wisdom and favor. Think about that for a moment.

The suffering in the end times will be unbearable, the bible says. That’s why Jesus returns. Please preach sermons on that. I do admire you as a preacher.

1939-1945: 56 million die in World War II.

Christians: “Not bad enough to count as the Great Tribulation.

Biden requires masks to travel by air.

Christians: “This is the unbearable suffering of the End Times.”

No human can reasonably claim, with certainty, that there is no God. We are limited creatures. There could be much truth that we are incapable of perceiving, or ever comprehending. The reasonable thing, then, is to be neutral.

The set of observations contradicting existing theory, thus requiring the existence of a god to “explain” them, grows smaller by the day.

Ok. Thank you for listening. Are you familiar with the Unmoved Mover argument from Aristotle and updated by Thomas Aquinas?

The Unmoved Mover violates the law of conservation of linear momentum as updated by Newton.

CS Lewis & Thomas Aquinas are elite apologists. I would dare any atheists to take their ideas head on

1. An Unmoved Mover would violate the law of reciprocity.

2. A First Cause assumes that time is co-eternal.

3. The contingency argument fails if spacetime is also eternal (see #2).

4. “The least dirty shirt is a clean shirt.”

5. Evolution presents only a simulacrum of design.

Any man who’s read the Proofs of Aquinas would laugh at these statements. Unmoved Mover, an unmade Maker, an uncaused Causer, the Highest Good

An Unmoved Mover violates the law of reciprocity (ie, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). If your god is assumed to violate physical laws, then why pretend such an argument is based in reason? It’s the same as simply asserting “God said let there be light”.

Aquinas leads to infinite regress, the kalam leads to exclusion of past infinites. All of which center on first cause. If the universe could be or is eternal then there is no need for a god.

If infinite regress calls for the existence of a First Cause then time (unified with 3-dimensional space as the gravitational field) must be co-eternal with that Cause.

If that Cause precedes time, then no interval exists over which it can act to bring space-time into being.

Oh my good grief. This is the whole reason why “creation is not a change,” as Aquinas says, precisely because God is not the Demiurge of the Timaeus. He doesn’t fashion pre-existing materials (for where did they come from?) but creates ex nihilo. Nihil cannot itself create.

Notwithstanding Aquinas, biblically nihil wasn’t the condition at the beginning with God, but, rather (even before light), water existed (Genesis 1:2) which God divided with a barrier he called Heaven (Genesis 1:7) and further subdivided to create Earth and Sea (Genesis 1:10).

Can’t slide Daniels 70th week forward 2000+ yrs…. Say goodby to “the Great Tribulation” and realize that all who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer tribulation. Everybody, all the way down from the cross to today. Mt 24 was fulfilled in 70 ad. Just like Jesus told them.

“…this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world…”

“…great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be…”

“…then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven…”

All that in 70 AD? Really?

If God isn’t real and I am presented with some compelling evidence… I’m out of here and becoming an atheist. If Jesus wasn’t who He said He was then I’m quitting and following whenever the True God is… was it allah? Was it some other man? Is it the sun? Nature? I want to give

All I know is that Jesus said he wasn’t good.

Luke 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

“Why have You forsaken me?” How could Jesus/God forsake himself? If He is God… why did Jesus sleep? Why did Jesus eat? Isn’t He self sufficient? That’s the dichotomy of Christ. 100% man and at the same time 100% God. God’s wisdom and ways surpass our own.

Jesus says he doesn’t know when the end of the world will come, only the Father.

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

You’d think if Jesus was God he’d be omniscient and know all that.

Pew Research proctored one over a nationally representative US sample. Christians and Jews scored better than atheists on Bible knowledge. Less than half of atheists knew Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount

Not many Christians know that the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 was the Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6, and the Mount disappeared. I guess faith really can move mountains!

I’m not giving you evidence for God, that’s your problem to find out. But atheists have achieved nothing compared to theists in science, be humble and shut up!

So what principles of theism have actually found their way into our science? That the sun was made four days after light? That bats really are birds? That the sun stood still for a day? That a wind actually did evaporate 1.1 billion cubic miles of flood water?

Explain where life and our world come from – you can’t . It’s from a creator – whether you believe it or not – it didn’t just appear from nothing … Jesus and God created everything – try the Bible it explains

Who says there was nothing in the beginning? Only Christians. Folks who understand that transformations of energy are perfectly symmetrical in time (ala Emmy Noether) know that if something exists now, then something has existed across the entire domain of time. @Alan_Taylor_314

i was just thinking if black holes conserve baryon number somehow, that gives us m-am asymmetry as well. maybe the Big Bang happened like we think, but maybe there was already more matter than antimatter. if God always was, then matter can also “always was”

If time past was not infinite then the universe can both 1) be finite in duration and 2) exist for all time.

Random energy and transformations did not create and regulate the stars and the sun and the earth and the seas and the human beings and the animals etc… it took divine intervention and design … if you were curious you would research..all I can do is point it out.

Your data has water existing before light, when you need the electromagnetic force (light) to hold water molecules together. Your data also has water existing before the stars required to cook H, He, Li, and Be to oxygen using stellar nucleogenesis to form the water.

it turns out stars have gravity! and space isn’t empty: gravity clumps. and God didn’t need created, did He? *so not everything needs created, does it*

Semi-clever believer: “Okay, atheist smarty-pants, where did the low entropy we’re running on ultimately come from? Whence the Past Hypothesis?”

Me: “The Big Bang scattered hydrogen uniformly throughout space, but to gravity this is like standing a pencil on its sharpened tip.”

Really? Electrical charges are very finite and temporal.

Just try charging your own body by rubbing your feet on a carpet and then touching your stainless or brass doorknob.

Or if you’re too lazy to do that, wait for a thunderstorm and watch the lightning.

What’s your point?

Charge is conserved. When a neutron decays into a proton an electron is also created to make sure the net charge after the event remains zero. So charge is not a contingent thing that can be created or destroyed. Charge is eternal. Your example deals with ensembles of charges.

Sure you can make arguments in attempt to show that a god cannot exist, the same way arguments are constructed to show that a god exists. As for Russell’s teapot, there is no warrant for the belief in this teapot since there is no reason to beleive in its existence, unlike God.

All I have to do is not find God in one location to rule out the existence of an omnipresent God.

---

---

The wages of sin is death.

Is that why plants and animals die too?

Existence itself is far greater than we are able to conceive, therefore a living higher power exists.

If this higher power exists and is omnipresent, then my failure to perceive his existence in any one place negates his existence in every place.

But it’s still true, it’s still a better bet or a better strategy to live life to follow Jesus w/ Mother Mary because it’s still true that death could come anytime, anywhere we don’t know when, we don’t know how- why take the risk of not following Jesus now? It’s a safer strategy

When a woman caught in adultery was brought before Jesus to test him, he said, “Let he without sin cast the first stone.”

One rock flew out of the crowd and struck the woman.

Jesus was incensed. The crowd parted to reveal Mary. Jesus said, “Momma, I asked you to stay home!”

When paul is talking about the law, he’s talking about sacrificial law Gal 3: Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

There is only the Law, the Bible makes no distinction between sacrificial law and any other law.

Numbers 15:16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

1Jn 2: And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.  He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Good luck with that way to salvation:

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

 

Mat 5: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

 

“Why isn’t the resurrection of Lazarus anywhere but in the Gospel of John” Argument from silence

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑑; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

St. John call your office!

Apostle just means one who was sent. It doesn’t necessarily have the same status as the 12.

Rev. 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Revelation teaches that in the age to come there will only be “twelve apostles of the Lamb”.

If Paul is one of these twelve, what of the ministry of Matthias?

Paul believes Jesus really appeared to him. It wasn’t his imagination in his opinion because otherwise he wouldn’t have converted. And if Jesus had never died, there would be no reason to not believe him. It’s only because there is a bias against miracles here.

Christ’s soteriology:

Repentance, water baptism, keeping the commandments, forgiving others, and faith in who he was

Paul’s soteriology:

Faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Adding the law nullifies the grace of the first.

Looks like Paul met an imposter.

What’s the Church position on veganism?

That eating meat cannot be a sin because Christ did not sin (Hebrews 4:15), yet he ate of the Passover lamb (Luke 22:15) and also barbecued fish (Luke 24:42).

Consensus denies traditional authorship for, Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Psalms, Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Daniel, Chronicles. I actually don’t know if consensus would say they know with probable reasoning any of the authors of the OT. As per NT we have Fake Pauline.

True Paul (1 Thes 5:2) : “The day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.”

Fake Paul (2 Thes.2:3):”That day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.”

Bonus Fake Paul (2 Thes.2:2): “True Paul is fake!”

Why Do Atheists Reject God’s Moral Law?

Num 15:32-35 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day…And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

He’s not quite right on that though. Historically speaking, the bible is true (to be trusted as the word of God) because the Church says so.

And when the Bible says some of Christ’s disciples would live to see the Day of the Lord the Church simply redefines the Day of the Lord to mean the Pentecost event, which means Christ said “Some of you standing here will still be breathing in forty days.” Oh boy!

Christians believe they exist. We just think they are demons.

Jude 1:6 “And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.”

He does go in depth on the word, showing that it allows a Trinity, yet one could still reconcile that doctrine with a divine simplicity. Norman Geisler goes over many such objections to divine simplicity in his book “Systematic Theology Volume 2” (chapter 2).

Taken as a trinity God’s divine simplicity fails from a quick examination of scripture. The Father has knowledge that the Son does not. The Holy Spirit has a dignity protected by unforgivability that the Father and Son do not. The Son must honor a human being (Mary) to avoid sin.

The god of the Bible stands up to all skepticism.

God (Psalm 147:5): “Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.”

Also God (Exodus 4:2): “And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod.”

Which one isn’t important. We all know God exists. But when one critically understands the evidence the conclusion is Christianity

Bible evidence rules out the Christian claim the Son of Man is divine:

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Well god is not a person. But I wouldn’t care what color God was. Jesus probably resembled a modern middle eastern person. So what?

If God is not a person, then Jesus is not God.

2 Corinthians 2:10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ

I believe in the God that comports to reality and is confirmed by the evidence.

That’s not the God of the Bible, of course.

Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

Genesis 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

The “context” of the poem shows Israel speaking and the Servant as an individual. The “context” does not help you at all.

Isaiah 53:3 He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease…

Deuteronomy 15:21 And if there be any blemish therein, as if it be lame, or blind, or have any ill blemish, thou shalt not sacrifice it unto the LORD thy God.

Case closed.

“In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.” – Hebrews 9:22 NLT

Luke 5:24 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.

Forgiveness without animal sacrifice and before the cross. Imagine that!

How is saying Mary wasn’t sinless limiting the power of God? Mary’s sin or lack thereof has nothing to do with God’s power. I don’t have a problem with Mary at all. I’m just pointing out that literally the only person in the history of the world who was sinless was Jesus.

How is saying Mary wasn’t sinless limiting the power of God? Mary’s sin or lack thereof has nothing to do with God’s power. I don’t have a problem with Mary at all. I’m just pointing out that literally the only person in the history of the world who was sinless was Jesus.

Aquinas argues that the only “perfection” that is good enough to attract God’s will necessarily is the divine perfection; and that anything God creates will be less than this, and hence cannot determine God’s will. I think this seems right or at least plausible

On the contrary, it is written (Hebrews 5:9): “And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.”

Ten Commandments – eight …Exodus 20:15 Thou shalt not steal

Also Exodus (3:22):

But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.

It does but also goes to show how needed it is for God to be in the marriage from the start. If one person converts and the other refuses, what is there to do about it? It is not right for a Christian to be in such a relationship with a secular person

1 Cor. 7:13-14 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband…

John tells us why he wrote his gospel. It was to bring his readers to faith in Jesus. Let’s look beyond John’s gospel. Let’s look at “all Scripture” (2 Timothy 3:16). “The Holy Scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15).

The holy scriptures also say that wisdom is not good:

Ecclesiastes 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

How dare you say you love God and hate your brother!! You are a liar! 1 John 4:20-21

Scripture:

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Bible prophecy is being set up for future fulfillment read Daniel 9:27 Ezekiel 38 and 39 and Isaiah 17 for some insight

Ezekiel 12:27-28 Son of man, behold, they of the house of Israel say, The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that are far off. Therefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; There shall none of my words be prolonged any more…

The foods that are offered to idols are an abomination to God.

1 Cor. 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

Satan is the god of this world. (2 Corinthians 4:4) His purpose is to steal, kill & destroy. (John 10:10) That explains most of what you’d ask about our world on earth.

I thought God gave the Earth to mankind, not Satan.

Psalm 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.

He will not destroy this world when he comes. Read the word of God.

Word of God:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

God gave Adam dominion over the earth until he sinned. Once sin entered, Adam (and mankind) lost that position. Sin separates us from God and changes everything. Jesus is the only bridge back to God & restoration of our relationship with Him.

On the contrary, even after the flood God said (Genesis 9:2): The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.

Good Lord, you’re embarrassing yourself right now and proving that Paul was right to tell Timothy this. 1 Timothy 2:14 NKJV — And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. There’s a reason women are forbidden from teaching, you’re proving it.

If Eve was deceived and ate the apple that was not willful sin.

If Adam was not deceived, yet still ate the apple, that was willful sin.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins

2 Peter 2: 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment

Also Peter (1 Peter 5:8): Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour

that the Christ must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles.” -Acts 26 : 22-23

First to rise?

2 Kings 13:21 And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.

WITHOUT LAW. LAWLESS.

God (Genesis 1:29): “Every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”

God, later: (Genesis 2:17): “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it.”

Eve: “You change your mind like a girl changes clothes.”

God has turned to wage war against my enemies. Rejoice

“Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:” ~Proverbs 24:17

Why did Jesus send the Apostles out and tell them to baptize people “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” and tell them to go to the ends of the earth? Why did missionaries go to great lengths to spread the Gospel if it didn’t matter?

I guess Paul thought baptism wasn’t as important as preaching and it started there.

1 Corinthians 1:17 “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”

Do you know that the Bible says if a person has been born again and saved from their sin, they won’t become not Christian later on? It’s a promise.

On the contrary, it is written (2 Peter 2:20): For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

The only thing I say to obtuse atheist is that their Big Bang theory ≈ Let their be light. There’s so many other examples too

Except that in the Bible theory God moved over the face of the waters before he created light, but in the Big Bang theory water came millions of years after light because oxygen was built up from lighter elements in the belly of stars.

This is not “the Ten.” It does not purport to be “the Ten.” This is a recapitulation that occurs between Ex 20 and Deut 5 (both the Ten).

On the contrary, it’s the only one that explicitly purports that it’s the Ten:

Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

All who trust in Him for their salvation, and not anything/anyone else, are saved. There is only one gospel, whether you were born in America or India, Catholic or Hindu. Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father.

The Bible says there are two gospels:

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Okay, it was a trick question. The correct answer is…both! The gospel of the circumcision is the same as the gospel of the uncircumcision. Same gospel, same message, presented differently to different audiences

If that is true, then Paul would not of said he was to preach the gospel OF the uncircumcision, but the gospel TO the uncircumcized. And Jewish Christians would have also been released from observing the law, rather than only gentile ones, per the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree…’ – Galatians 3:13

Also Bible (Deuteronomy 11:26-28): Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God @Elishabenabuya

Those who teach that you still need to keep the Law, as opposed to trusting in Jesus Christ alone, for salvation are teaching a false gospel, which is Paul’s point in the other verse you quoted.

I know that was what Paul taught, but it wasn’t what Jesus taught in Matthew 19:17: “… if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Have you read the book of Hebrews? It explains a lot about this. Much of the Law was fulfilled by Jesus Christ (eg. there is no more need for animal sacrifices, they were only a temporary picture to help us understand the need and significance of a substitutionary sacrifice)

What was the need and significance of a substitutionary sacrifice? An all-powerful God could simply have mercy and forgive sins out of the goodness of his heart without blood. Jesus in Matthew 9:13 said, “Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.”

God cannot lie. That is not because of a lack of power, but because it goes against His character. He is true and has no desire to lie.

On the contrary, it is written (2 Thessalonians 2:11): For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

The previous verse says that “they did not receive the love of the truth”. God is simply affirming their choice. “You don’t want to believe in a God who does not lie? Okay, here you go!”

Why would God need to actively keep them from receiving the truth if they did not love the truth, unless there was a risk they would embrace the truth despite their lack of love for it? And wouldn’t that be a good thing? As is typical, the scriptures do not make logical sense.

Chinese Government Is Rewriting the Bible with Communist Principles, Watchdog Group Warns.

Chinese communist revision of Acts 2:44-45 –

[44] And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

[45] And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Oh, wait…

This is an issue never addressed by theists. They don’t simply claim a designer, they claim a *perfect* designer. One imperfection should be enough to reject that claim. They also claim one designer for all life, so the fact that it is found better elsewhere is another major flaw

On the contrary, one imperfection is sufficient to reject the creator’s identity as the god of the Bible:

Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

You currently worship a creature, one of many, whereas you must worship one true immutable God, an uncreated God, uncaused First Cause, Supreme Being, one and only, who created everything out of nothing, without whom nothing came to be.

Scripture teaches us that Jesus increased in favor with God. So God can increase, which means he is not immutable.

you can’t explain gravity, evolution of wing, Precambrian fossils or entropy but you’re a brave little atheist, I give you that

Gravity:

Mass curves space-time.

Analogy: Two ships are traveling due north. They seem to move closer and closer together, but this is only because the geodesics they move on converge at the north pole, which they wouldn’t do on a flat plane.

---

 

---

Falsifiability is highly overrated. Popper never intended it to be the end-all-be-all ideological virtue. It was only a way to distinguish science and non-science. Just because something isn’t science doesn’t mean it’s false, and just because it’s science doesn’t make it true

String guy: Particles are really strings vibrating in nine dimensions.

Girl: I only see three dimensions.

String guy: Six are too small to see. And each string has a partner.

Girl: I only see 25 fundamental particles.

String guy: The partners are too massive to see.

Girl: Oh

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Kalam debunked:

4. The gravitational field is part of the universe.

5. Time began to exist when the universe began to exist, because space-time is identical to the gravitational field.

6. “Before” time existed, there was no time over which a first cause could operate.

Theology and the Bible are not the same thing. Theology is man’s interpretation of what God wrote. That why it is called the “study of God.”

The only thing God ever wrote was the original ten commandments, which Moses dropped and broke, and “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN”.

…and yet Bible prophecy is infallible while time and time again the other prophecies have not come true.

The Bible predicted that Egypt would lie empty for forty years. This never happened and it cannot happen in the future because another prophecy says Jesus will come like a thief in the night, and Egypt lying empty for forty years before that would be a dead giveaway, wouldn’t it?

It *all* leads to Hell… the leftist atheist “paradise”.

The charge is original sin. I am charged with committing sin before I was even born. I plead not guilty. If a “god” wants to torture me forever anyway, I’ll deal with it. But he will get nothing but my eternal contempt.

Genesis 6-9 – the account of the global flood and Noah’s Ark – is a critical historical event that enables accurate understanding of the earth’s strata and earth history. Without this perfectly preserved account in Scripture, we could not understand history.

Trilobite fossils have the same frequency no matter if they are dug up in Kansas City or in Spokane or in Australia. Compressing 300 million years of evolution into as many days means the antediluvian world must have been wall-to-wall trilobites.

There is only one infinite universe, it doesn’t have an outside or inside.

Nobody knows whether the universe is infinite. That’s like standing in an Iowa cornfield with the horizon 16,000 feet away and concluding that the Earth has an infinite area.

Catechism 1857: For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” We know what grave matter is but not someone else’s mind. Above our pay grade.

We do know that Adam and Eve did not have full knowledge of the evil of eating the forbidden fruit until after the act because that knowledge only came by eating it. Therefore by the Church’s own definition Adam and Eve did not commit mortal sin.

Obviously a whole section would be how no, CS Lewis doesn’t hate women, and everyone is misinterpreting Susan in the Last Battle. The problem is her abandoning #Narnia not getting into fashion and makeup. She could have stayed faithful to Narnia and be an absolute fashion icon

Susan and Peter are allowed back one more time, then later only Lucy and Edmund are allowed to go back a third time. Puberty seems to be the cutoff for going there, short of dying. Susan didn’t abandon Narnia, Narnia abandoned her.

The Last Battle (The last book for the Narnia series). I hate that book with a burning passion and refuse to admit it exists. It was misogynistic with the fact that Susan didn’t get to go to ‘heaven’ because she kissed a boy.

Susan grew up, became a wife, a mother, a grandmother, and died with her human dignity intact, as half the human race has done from time immemorial. Her brothers and sister were whisked away to a magical land for high tea with talking animals, telling them how silly Susan was.

The first death in the bible was because of jealousy. What y’all call love. It was for the love of God that Cain killed Abel.

When Adam and Eve realized they were naked they sewed fig leaves together for clothing, but God thought it looked too much like 1990s grunge and decked them out with fur from a dead animal instead. In fact, this is the first indication we have in scripture that God hates figs.

Goes back to the Aquinas idea of the unmoved mover. If the laws of physics hold true (energy is conserved) then there must be an original source of all energy that set everything into motion i.e. God

If the laws of physics hold true, then a mover cannot remain unmoved. Momentum (rotational and linear) is always conserved.

You explain it then. Also explain why all math and physics work perfectly in tune with set rules. Almost as if it was designed

Evolution teaches us that species may present a simulacrum of design simply because there are only so many optimal solutions to a problem. This is why sea mammals resemble fish so closely even the Word of God gets confused (ie. was Jonah in a whale or a fish? The Bible says both)

Ontology deals with intrinsic qualities. Things that are indivisible from the nature of the thing. Thomas Aquinas proved the existence of God five ways ontologically. God is love, truth, beginning, end, and good. The fact that he is these things proves his existence.

Love, truth, beginning, end, and good are verbs, not nouns. They only exist when interacting with another. If you do good to another person then you are good. If your beliefs are in accord with the way things are then they are true. Good and truth cannot exist in isolation.

As I’ve already delineated numerous times, you atheists function as if God exists by living according to a hierarchy of values. In other words, you tacitly affirm Thomas Aquinas’ fourth way.

Aquinas’ Fourth Way:

A bachelor has a job interview in thirty minutes. He desperately searches his apartment and finds his least smelly shirt. This shirt must therefore be perfectly clean, by definition.

The books written on these myths don’t hold up like the Book of Mormon does which gets so much right. Such as metal plates, barley used in ancient America, the use of cement… All of which were either denied are poorly understood in his day.

2 Nephi 3:18-19 …I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it….

Yes. Look up the council if nicaea. and the nicaean creed. I might off with the spelling, but this is the event and product of what happened to the message of Jesus.

The message of Jesus was, “Repent of your sins and be baptized, for the direct rule of God on Earth is soon to come to be.”

The Nicean Creed retained only the baptism message. Literally everything else describes the roles and relationships among the persons of the Holy Trinity.

Add Newton’s first law of motion: a body at rest stays at rest, a body in motion stays in motion – unless acted on by an external force.

So if you go back before the Big Bang – ALL matter just sat there. What acted on it to get it moving. The unmoved mover

God moves a Thing.

Thing: “Wow, look, God just pushed himself away from me!”

Galilean relativity is such a party pooper!

I don’t deny microevolution because it’s observable. Macroevolution is a theory, one that folks have had to make some amazing assumptions to defend.

What physical mechanism (other than the Earth being only 6,000 years old) prevents microevolution from going on to become macroevolution?

---

> @darwintojesus
> Jim Jones was a communist,
> he threw the Bible on
> the ground. I’d encourage
> you to do some more
> research.

Jesus was a communist too.

“If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.”

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

“People who say the Bible is with contradiction has never read the Bible!” No people who say the Bible has contradictions don’t understand the Bible

Man was not created until Day Six according to Genesis 1. But some animals were created on Day Five. That means some animals were created before man, contrary to the statement in Genesis 2.

I have nothing to lose if no God exists. You have everything to lose if God exists. I have experienced way too much proof to know God is real tho that’s why I’m constantly trying to bring people to seek and at least give Him a chance.

If the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, I have everything to win and you have everything to lose. If the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist, then neither of us wins. The optimal strategy, therefore, is to accept the existence of the IPU (Peace Be Upon Her).

bergoglio is forming his NEW AGE RELIGION with all heretics running the Vatican. He is leading us also to the one world religion

New age? What about when you use ESP to ask Mother Mary to use ESP to put in a good psychic suggestion for you?

Noah’s Ark has been found with high probability on Mount Ararat

Are you kidding? Goat herders broke that ship up long ago for fire wood. A man gets cold above the tree line.

Ah yes science. Never again will I trust anybody that says follow the science. I choose to follow the teachings of the Bible.

Bible science:

Birds:

1. Eagle 2. Ossifrage 3. Ospray, 4. Vulture 5. Kite 6. Raven 7. Owl 8. Night Hawk 9. Cuckow 10. Hawk 11. Little Owl 12. Cumorant 13. Great Owl 14. Swan 15. Pelican 16. Gier Eagle 17. Stork 18. Heron 19. Lapwing 20. Bat

Yup. Gravity reverses entropy by organizing matter. All of biological life reverses entropy by organizing organic matter, using the energy input from the sun.

Gravity does NOT reverse entropy. Under gravity, every second, 600 million tons of solar hydrogen are converted into 596 million tons of helium, with a mass loss of four million tons, which becomes light, drives weather and life on Earth, then escapes as heat into the night sky.

Gravity allows an increase in complexity and a reduction in chaos. A temporary one. The net entropy of the universe is always increasing.

You may think a cosmos uniformly filled with gas represents high entropy, but to gravity this is like a pencil balanced on its tip. Because entropy measures energy which is unavailable to do work. And black holes, the final product of gravity, are the ultimate in unavailability.

According to Big Bang Theory, the universe is infinite and yet it’s expanding. If we reverse the process, we get a single point of infinite density called “the singularity”.

Running the movie backwards you can’t get to a finite point from an infinite universe. What is infinity divided by two? What is infinity divided by anything? So if the universe is infinite now, it must have always been infinite.

It’s a moral problem. Removing the act of sex from the creation of the child is disordered because sex is ordered towards that very thing. It has all sorts of other corollaries that lead to things like treating it as a manufacturing process rather than love.

The concept of “manufacturing process” is implicit in the phrase “sex is ordered toward the creation of the child”. Another implication is that sterile individuals should not be permitted to wed because it violates the teleology of sex, which is “ordered” to manufacture a child.

Well, miracles are a good way of convincing us that the message is from God.

Jesus feeding the five thousand with two fish and five loaves would certainly convince us his message was from God, if you could convince us the miracle actually happened. Otherwise you’re back to “it’s a matter of faith” and the miracle is moot

When he say eternal law he’s referring to a law of nature. This is apart of his metaphysics which he uses to inform his theology.

Certainly things like the law of reciprocal action are not eternal natural laws, since Aquinas allows an initial violation of this law with the Unmoved Mover.

---

---

A gentle reminder that Aquinas’ First and Second Way is not trying to prove the universe has a beginning. Just in case another New Atheist makes the *claim* that it has been refuted.

On the contrary, it is written (Summa IQ2A3)

I: “..this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover…”

II: “…it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another…”

Aquinas’s first demonstration of God’s existence is the argument from motion. He drew from Aristotle’s observation that each thing in the universe that moves is moved by something else.

If you sit on a sled and throw bricks, your sled moves in a direction opposite from the moving bricks. This is the conservation of linear momentum. An “unmoved mover” violates this law.

Aquinas is getting here at per se (essentially ordered) series, and, guess what, they don’t occur through time. They occur here and now. Like gravity causing everything to fall to the ground here and now. This kind of causation is simultaneous. You might want to research more

We have detected gravitational waves with LIGO/VIRGO and confirmed they move at the speed of light. This observation rules out simultaneity and “action at a distance” for gravity. Newton suspected this when he wrote the Principia, but he didn’t know the details.

My mistake, but I think you get the point. An essentially ordered series occurs simultaneously even though the example was imperfect. The problem with the example doesn’t change the fact that Aquinas’ First and Second Ways are not concerned with explaining how the world began.

The First and Second Ways arrive at God by the intermediate step of ruling out the claim that the world did NOT have a beginning. It assumes time is both infinite (allowing Aquinas to object to a boundless regression) and an independent arena wholly other than the world.

Vatican II is a failed council.

Jesus, to his Apostles: “He who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.”

Good luck explaining your rejection on Judgment Day.

“I answer that, By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist….The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself. ”

WP: “…Archaean lead ores of galena have been used to date the formation of Earth as these represent the earliest formed lead-only minerals on the planet and record the earliest homogeneous lead–lead isotope systems on the planet. These have returned age dates of 4.54 Gyears…”

So do you agree that the first and second ways do not aim to prove that the universe has a beginning? The rest I will leave out for y’all scientists to work out. One could also object whether the universe we speak of did have a beginning, it might just be an infinite regress.

Assuming that time exists independently of the universe, prior to the first movement a universe, although extant, would exist in a state such that any one moment would be indistinguishable from another. So the action of a First Mover does indeed represent a cosmic beginning.

The Kalam and Aquinas’ Ways are very different. To refute the Kalam is a piece of cake. To refute Aquinas’ Ways is impossible.

Third Way. I answer that, we observe that matter may be created or destroyed. Still, the mass and energy associated with such matter remain unchanged in quantity after the transformation. Put simply, while matter or energy is contingent, the composite mass-energy is necessary.

By First Mover, Aquinas refers not to (again, repeating what I said) the mover first in TIME. He refers to the First Mover in the per se causal series. Prime Mover, therefore, would be more accurate.

Excellent. And my argument is that a universe that does not move is represented by the first element in a series of states in phase space. While universal time may move independently of this series, there will not be a second element in the set of states until there is movement.

That makes literally no sense. Aquinas, trhough the Third Way gets to the fact that his opponent must concede that something eternal must exist. That ‘might’ be matter.

According to the regularities of succession we observe, transformations of the composite entity known as mass-energy are absolutely symmetrical in time. This is known as a conservation law and implies that it is ex nihilo creation that demands an explanation rather than the law

The thing about metaphysics (and arguments for God) is that one must stop thinking about scientifically proven ‘laws’ and switch to ‘laws’ whose very denial is irrational. Scientific ‘laws’ are based on mere empirical observations.

Laws based on mere empirical observations have the advantage over laws derived by pure reason in that any two persons will agree on the former, since they are derived from the world itself, whereas Humeans disagree with Thomists whether the laws are prescriptive vs. descriptive.

Laws of nature can be denied precisely because they are based on experience and their denial does not entail an impossible conclusion.

That’s very true. We have seen believers deny radiocarbon dating, by three different laboratories, of sections of the Holy Shroud of Turin because the 14th Century BCE result conflicts with the tradition the relic is from the 1st Century.

It is possible for the laws of nature to be broken. It is impossible for the law of non-contardiction to be broken. A circle-square is *impossible* because it is a contradiction. Inertia being denied is not.

The law of Newtonian gravitation was broken by the 43 arcsecond-per-revolution rotation of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. Einstein amended the law of gravitation with a better law that incorporated the contradiction. Truth is when our model is in accord with the world.

Laws of nature can be broken: agree or disagree? (‘Can’ is used in a very wide sense

Laws of nature can be broken because they are in the same category of laws of men. They are descriptive of regularities of succession. Those regularities, however, are precisely that.

Evil spreads like an infectious disease if not stopped.

Aquinas: “Evil is a privation: the lack of being in something good which does exist.”

How does non-being spread unless being willingly or by design vacates where it spreads?

---

---

In his Summa, St. Thomas Aquinas clearly states that Holy Communion should not be given to such public sinners: “Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it.” He explains why “Holy things are forbidden 2b given to dogs, that is,to notorious sinners.”

We are all made in the image of God. That revolutionary and innovative doctrine eventually put in into slavery. Atheism did nothing. In fact, Atheism has its own history during the 20th century were 150 million people.

 

Correlation is not causation. If you bet Argumentum ad Stalinum I raise Argumentum ad Testosteronum: All the genocidal dictators of the 20th Century were also men.

---

---

Common atheist tactics exposed:
1. Define faith as “trust without evidence”.
2. Claim that this is what the religious mean when they talk of Faith.
3. Ignore any critique or correction.
4. Ignore the arguments for the existence of God.
5. Reduce everything in live to physics.

Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as evidence of invisible things. In other words, your emotion of assurance in invisible things is sufficient evidence they exists. This fails because emotions are not valid epistemological tools. If they were, then Mormonism would also be true.

Lmao! It created itself? Bwhahahah! The universe had a beginning if the bible says it was eternal you would literally scream it had a beginning! Anything but God right? What is sick is that you rather believe in the IMPOSSIBLE than to believe in God what a sick individual.

Xian: “Name something that doesn’t have a beginning.”

Atheist: “The universe.”

Xian: “Ha ha ha, you believe the universe created itself!”

Atheist: “Does God have a beginning?”

Xian: “Of course not!”

Atheist: “Ha ha ha, you believe God created himself!”

Now, since Paul kept repeating in his epistles that salvation was by faith alone, not by works, why would he write that? Because the other gospels had elements of works in them. This is what separated Paul’s Grace gospel from all other gospels in the Bible.

Jesus (Matthew 19:17): “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”

The gospel according to Paul vs. the gospel according to Christ. We report, you decide.

Daniel 9:2 claims that Jerusalem was desolate for 70 years.
Since that didn’t happen, any other calculation is going to be really messed up!
(Jews in exile for 54 yrs after Jerusalem fell. Then Ezra leading a small group to rebuild almost 80 years later).

Nebbie has a vision of an idol with a (1) head of gold (his empire), (2) arms of silver (Medes), (3) belly of brass (Persians), (4) legs of iron (Greece), (5) feet of clay (Romans).

History didn’t wrap up with Rome, so now the feet of clay is the EU and 2 was the MEDO-Persians !

By specifying Matthew 24, it seems like they may be alluding to the abomination of desolation.

Matthew relied on Mark, and Mark, writing from the middle of the Jewish war, basically blew off the actual abomination of desolation of the Greeks 200 years earlier and had Jesus “prophesy” a new one. But the Romans just burnt the whole Temple down so Luke deleted “abomination”.

Correct. Luke necessarily presents the sign of “desolation” as the armies surrounding Jerusalem, as the Temple can’t very well have an abomination set up within it if there’s no Temple.

Not to mention the intended audience of Luke’s gospel was Gentiles who wouldn’t care one jot nor tittle what defect in priestly ritual qualified as an “abomination”, whereas Matthew, writing for Jewish Christians, made sure to collect all the Old Testament prophetic plot coupons.

---

---

Biden is the Son of Satan. The Antichrist was the perfectly evil human being because he was completely opposite to the perfectly good human being, Jesus Christ.Just as Christians came to believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, so t that the Antichrist was the Son of Satan.

When I was a kid they told me Jimmy Carter was the Son of Satan.

After that they said Bill Clinton was the Son of Satan.

After that they said Barack Obama was the Son of Satan.

Now it’s Joe Biden.

I’m not sure, but I think I’m starting to see a pattern here.

Christianity is the answer to the problem of evil.

Christianity’s answer to theodicy (the problem of evil):

Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

IOW God in his supreme wisdom dishes out damnation and salvation as he chooses, who are you to question him?

In what way is the Argument from Motion weak? I’d love to see this. Lol

The premise “whatever is moved is moved by another” rules out the ability of a proposed First Mover to move when putting a second thing into motion.

Prediction: He thinks the Argument from Motion is the same as the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

In every case when something that is moved is put into motion by a cause of that motion, the cause itself moves. A sailing vessel moves when wind moves against its sails. But a First Mover is proposed who moves without himself moving, which is an instance of special pleading.

You claimed the resurrection is a denial of basic science. The burden of proof is on you to prove that claim.

PitBull @PitBulllOwner
Replying to @SariellaForever @LinuxGal

So not only can you not refute scripture or answer my science questions on evolution but you cant prove your loony evolution claims either.. 🤣🤣🤣

Evolution claims are never proven, they are what remains standing after all the loony stuff (like a god giving mouth-to-mouth to a mudpie) is rendered implausible.

Pope Francis: “[Jesus] knows we are sinners; he knows we make many mistakes, but he does not give up on joining his life to ours. He knows that we need it, because the Eucharist is not the reward of saints, but the bread of sinners.”

---

---

Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways to Prove the Existence of God: The First Way: Motion. The Second Way: Efficient Cause. The Third Way: Possibility and Necessity. The Fourth Way: Gradation. The Fifth Way: Design.

1. An unmoved mover violates the law of reciprocal action.

2. Radioactive decay is uncaused.

3. Conservation laws point to mass-energy being necessary rather than contingent.

4. The best item of a set may not be objectively good.

5. Evolution presents a simulacrum of design.

---

---

Right, according to his humanity. According to his divinity “he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Heb 1:3).

Doesn’t that border on Nestorianism, to split the being of Christ in twain like that? I’ve heard Protestants deny Mary as theotokos by claiming she only gave birth to Christ according to his humanity.

The Christian gospel message: If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord,and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (i.e. saved into spending an eternity w/ him).

Half of eternity, maybe. The first half is already gone and we spent it without him.

I’m not assuming you’d think he’s right just because he’s Aquinas, if anything I’d think you’d assume he’s wrong because it’s Aquinas. Evidence, how about the Big Bang (formulated by a Catholic priest)? That the universe is not infinite in time is evidence of a first cause.

A First Cause is “evidenced” by incredulity over a chain of cause and effect existing in a universe with infinite time. Infinite time is assumed as an initial condition. In a universe without infinite time, there is just a moment with no prior moments, and no cause required.

 

 

---