6000 years of history

[RonE]

6000 years of recorded history, it seems to me that if there were gods (or God), by now we would all know. Science has found no place for god in any hypothesis explaining the laws of nature.

We are presented with two alternatives, either there are no gods or they are hiding, playing tricks on us trying to test us, but really why would such powerful beings need or want to do that. Occam’s razor points us to the obvious answer, simple… no one is there.

Let’s move out of kindergarten and make believe, let’s feed the poor and starving, let’s put hate and war out of business.

What say you?

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 62 by ThePainefulTruth]

The mantra of the moral relativist.

Is that to be taken as an insult? Sure seems that way. What proof do you have that evil is not what you say it is?

Our self-awareness makes us aware of the effect of our violation of the rights of others by automatically putting ourselves in their shoes. Evil is when we force ourselves to suppress that innate knowledge of the suffering we cause.

So, to answer my question of SAYS WHO?, the ansers is: YOU. Which is exactly what I said of EVEIL IS WHAT YOU SAY EVIL IS
So, are you a moral relativist?

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 67 by ttruscott]

"Either He created it (evil) or didn't prevent it from being created (evil)." well of course this is exactly what I wrote and what I have contended here for the last 2 years - GOD allowed the creation of evil by the people HE created. BUT HE is NOT guilty of sin for this as you suggest because the maker of the match is not responsible for the arsonists flames.

If God is the God you seem to accept, He coudl have prevented it. He didn't so he's just as 'blamable'. Sometimes the truth hurts
But pro-God people will go out of their way to convince themselves of illogical thinking so that they can excuse their God from any wrong doing. Sad but that's life.

GOD created us ingenuously innocent with the ability to make true free will decisions to bond with HIM or to reject HIM.

If this is factual, prove it. If it's not factual, you need to state it as an opinion. I see no proof to support your claim.

Our free will was necessary for our love to be real and our holiness to be real as a forced love and a forced holiness is not at all loving or holy.

If this is factual, prove it. If it's not factual, you need to state it as an opinion. I see no proof to support your claim.

That this also allowed evil was prepared for and is now being worked out.

Now you're admitting God is responsible, or are you simply making excuses for Him?

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 62 by ThePainefulTruth]

The mantra of the moral relativist.

Is that to be taken as an insult? Sure seems that way. What proof do you have that evil is not what you say it is?

You might want to reword that question. And you said "Evil is what you say is evil at the time." So if morality is relative based on whatever you say is "evil at the time", so too would an insult be whatever one says is offensive at the time. Of course that could all change in the following seconds depending the whim of whoever it is determining what's morally relative at that moment.

Our self-awareness makes us aware of the effect of our violation of the rights of others by automatically putting ourselves in their shoes. Evil is when we force ourselves to suppress that innate knowledge of the suffering we cause.

So, to answer my question of SAYS WHO?, the ansers is: YOU. Which is exactly what I said of EVEIL IS WHAT YOU SAY EVIL IS
So, are you a moral relativist?

No, the "ansers" is our self-awareness, which some try to fool by continually moving the goal posts while declaring "No, those aren't my fingerprints!"

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 66 by ttruscott]

The Bible is hearsay which is worthless as evidence, and in this case it's 2-3000 year old hearsay.

...

Hearsay is only evidence that is not allowed in a trial. It is evidence of something, in our lives. It is there, you can heft the book; you can read it and think about its meaning and compare that to your experiences in life and if that is not evidence then nothing is whether it is allowed in a trial or not.

evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. The belief in question is, in short, the reality of spiritual things and the Bible is accepted by everyone as evidence...1. that it indicates the truth that spiritual things are truth AND 2. it is used as evidence for others that there is no truth to spirituality. By using the bible to question the Christian use of it as truth it is indeed evidence for your position.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 67 by ttruscott]

"Either He created it (evil) or didn't prevent it from being created (evil)." well of course this is exactly what I wrote and what I have contended here for the last 2 years - GOD allowed the creation of evil by the people HE created. BUT HE is NOT guilty of sin for this as you suggest because the maker of the match is not responsible for the arsonists flames.

If God is the God you seem to accept, He coudl have prevented it. He didn't so he's just as 'blamable'. Sometimes the truth hurts

Please follow:
1. GOD wanted to share true love within a pure holiness with HIS creation.

2. True love and real holiness can only be created by the true free will decision of the person. Any other 'creation’ of love or holiness is not real and falls short of true love and holiness. No power can change this necessity.

3. For a choice to be a real or true choice, it must offer all options available to the choice, both pro and con, or the choice, contstrained as it is, is not a true choice but a limited choice. No power can change this necessity.

4. Given GOD’s goals and the necessity of our ability to make true free will choices, GOD could not prevent the creation of evil by the choice of some of HIS people choosing it and no power can change the necessity of HIS method once HIS goals were set.

[ttruscott]

...

Sometimes the truth hurts
But pro-God people will go out of their way to convince themselves of illogical thinking so that they can excuse their God from any wrong doing. Sad but that's life.

If this is factual, prove it. If it's not factual, you need to state it as an opinion. I see no proof to support your claim.

Please... this gets so tired eh?

Peace, Ted

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hearsay is only evidence that is not allowed in a trial. It is evidence of something, in our lives. It is there, you can heft the book; you can read it and think about its meaning and compare that to your experiences in life and if that is not evidence then nothing is whether it is allowed in a trial or not.

It isn't admissible because it can't be substantiated. And then there's double hearsay, which is hearsay based on hearsay. When you're talking about the Bible, it's hearsay to an exponent to 20, at least.

Now I'll be the first to admit that there is some history recorded in the Bible, and we know this because it's been independently substantiated. But with every historical event that is verified, and there have been many, it shines a light on the fact that there isn't the first piece of evidence for a supernatural event. It's evident that Jericho was razed around the time the Israelites were becoming ascendent; but there's no evidence of the Sun standing still as he requested, though you'd think every civilization, especially the Chinese, would have recorded it in 72 point type, or whatever.

Now it appears to have happened that the walls of Jericho did collapse and Sodom was destroyed by a conflagration. But even today, some still praise God for giving us a victory over our enemies or for poetic justice happening to the unjust, when the events were completely natural.

BTW, synonyms for hearsay are rumor and gossip.

Should we examine such rumors? Sure. Just don't adopt a default position of "truth" for such evidence, which by definition is unsubstantiated, until one is actually substantiated.

[Zzyzx]

.

Please follow:
1. GOD wanted to share true love within a pure holiness with HIS creation.

2. True love and real holiness can only be created by the true free will decision of the person. Any other 'creation’ of love or holiness is not real and falls short of true love and holiness. No power can change this necessity.

3. For a choice to be a real or true choice, it must offer all options available to the choice, both pro and con, or the choice, contstrained as it is, is not a true choice but a limited choice. No power can change this necessity.

4. Given GOD’s goals and the necessity of our ability to make true free will choices, GOD could not prevent the creation of evil by the choice of some of HIS people choosing it and no power can change the necessity of HIS method once HIS goals were set.

All of the above is PURE SPECULATION based on opinions (modern or ancient) that cannot be shown to be truthful or accurate.

Wonderful and terrible things have been attributed to some of the thousands of proposed "gods" and other proposed supernatural entities. All that is lacking is evidence than any of it is more than imagination, fantasy, or fraud.

[ttruscott]

...

Should we examine such rumors? Sure. Just don't adopt a default position of "truth" for such evidence, which by definition is unsubstantiated, until one is actually substantiated.

Claiming truth for evidence would be claiming the evidence is proven. As you well know, I do not think that the evidence of Christianity is proven, only that it exists.

As for hearsay evidence being unsubstantiated on the level of rumour, it is still evidence. It may be good evidence, accepted as credible, or bad evidence, far from being believable but it is evidence. And the goodness and badness of it is often totally dependant on the person's own prior development and mental filters of their understanding. That is all I'm saying. It is not proof of truth.

But it is the evidence that in conjunction with the personal things I've had with GOD, is acceptable enough for me to be able to put my faith in GOD and believe in Christ as my saviour.

I do not 'believe' or put my faith in everything I read in the Bible because I do not have faith in the Bible. I only put my faith in that part of the Bible that I accept the Holy Spirit has led me to believe. My natural skepticism is still strong so when I read something I do not understand, rather than attack GOD and the Bible as I used to do myself, sadly, I now hold my opinion in abeyance until things prove out one way or another. I have had enough falls on my face over quick decisions about things I was certain of but had to recant.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

All of the above is PURE SPECULATION based on opinions (modern or ancient) that cannot be shown to be truthful or accurate.

Wonderful and terrible things have been attributed to some of the thousands of proposed "gods" and other proposed supernatural entities. All that is lacking is evidence than any of it is more than imagination, fantasy, or fraud.

The criteria to accept the evidence as supporting faith seems to be far less than the criteria that the evidence can only be accepted as proof of truth. Faith is a hope the evidence is true, not that it is proven true as all religions show us.

Is it not therefore a fallacy of logic to demand that all evidence used to substantiate a faith must conform to the dictate that the only evidence that should be used for faith must be evidence that proves the truth?

There seems to be a commitment of the dictate "evidence to be evidence must prove a truth" by those who cringe at the thought of faith that if the evidence only supports hope and not proof of truth, they cannot even call it evidence though that is a fallacy.

Peace, Ted