NT Writers

[POI]

For the context of this discussion, let's roll with the definition of faith to mean -- "to trust in, or to apply hope in anyways, despite inference(s) to the contrary. " Since belief does not seem to be a choice, as I cannot simply chose to believe in fairies without proper demonstration, the term faith looks to be the work-around.

Further, many will also argue faith in Jesus is necessary, because all humans fall short. But if this is THE case, then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant. Which then looks to be contradictory and/or illogical, as the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

For debate: Were the NT writer(s) savvy enough to recognize that many would read this collection of writings and not believe -- (due to contradiction and/or illogic)? Hence, the workaround term faith was implemented?

[TRANSPONDER]

We know our pal is struggling when we get absurd excuses and evasions and demands that every single question be explained or he will reject everything. Are we getting denial of tectonic plate movement because he wants to make the circle of the earth onto the pacific ring?

And the conventional rep of an earth seen from above the arctic (it does NOT show all the continents including the antarctic like a flat earth map, but foreshortened like looking down on a globe so 1213 is scrabbling for excuses without looking), And perfect love casting out fear? is that intended to deny that Hellthreat is not a thing? It absolutely is in Christianity in general.

[POI]

Third request:

While I'm awaiting the sole Christian responder to this thread, I wonder if Christians have any feedback regarding another part of the OP? (i.e.):

Further, many will also argue faith in Jesus is necessary, because all humans fall short. But if this is THE case, then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant. Which then looks to be contradictory and/or illogical, as the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code...

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, the way it seems to look in Paul - and i consider it begins with Paul (our pal will probably not agree) - is that Righteousness was through doing God's word, which means believing in God and His Words follow. The Law was given because the hebrews fell short of the ideal, But Paul reckons that Jesus, sidelining sin with his sacrifice, enables all those not subject to the Law to be morally perfect, through Faith in Jesus.

But in his next letter (never mind the Experts, to me Romans is his thesis, and all the other letters are further thoughts on that) Paul found out that Jesusfaith did not prevent his two Corinthians to getting up to all kinds of Naughties and not just the ones from Corinth, Alabama.And so he had to re -introduce Works to stop his converts losing Grace through sinning.

[1213]

...many exceptions exist to the "golden rule...

I disagree with that.

When you read all the verses in the Bible, in context, you get the impression that the author(s) thought the earth was a flat disk.

No i don't get that silly impression.

No, What is silly, is even suggesting one can see all kingdoms, the higher you go.

it is silly to think Bible is suggesting that, when it is not really doing so.

[1213]

...There are videos of magma erupting underwater along various oceanic ridges and, since the Midatlantic Ridge runs through Iceland, there are videos of volcanic action along that particular ridge on land....

Interesting claim. By what was taught to me in atheistic scientific oriented school, the Icelandic volcanoes are not related to the ridge. They are "hotspot" volcanoes, which is a different thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotspot_(geology)

[TRANSPONDER]

...many exceptions exist to the "golden rule...

I disagree with that.

When you read all the verses in the Bible, in context, you get the impression that the author(s) thought the earth was a flat disk.

No i don't get that silly impression.

No, What is silly, is even suggesting one can see all kingdoms, the higher you go.

it is silly to think Bible is suggesting that, when it is not really doing so.

Nobody cares what you disagree with, now do they care what seems silly to you. They care (or should) what you can debunk with good arguments, not deny with unsupported dismissal.

...There are videos of magma erupting underwater along various oceanic ridges and, since the Midatlantic Ridge runs through Iceland, there are videos of volcanic action along that particular ridge on land....

Interesting claim. By what was taught to me in atheistic scientific oriented school, the Icelandic volcanoes are not related to the ridge. They are "hotspot" volcanoes, which is a different thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotspot_(geology)

Now, here is a serious argument. It can be checked Of course the Iceland volcanoes have to be related to some tectonic plate, even if that is nothing to do with the mid - Atlantic ridge. Come to think of it, it seems the only place in Europe or I should say, Scandinavia, that does have regular volcanoes. A Hot -spot indeed, but so is Hawaii and Java too, but that does not have them taught as being unconnected to the fault - lines of tectonic plates, even in atheistic evilooshun - teaching places of education.

Looking at the link, you make a good point in fact

"hotspots (or hot spots) are volcanic locales thought to be fed by underlying mantle that is anomalously hot compared with the surrounding mantle.[1] Examples include the Hawaii, Iceland, and Yellowstone hotspots. A hotspot's position on the Earth's surface is independent of tectonic plate boundaries, and so hotspots may create a chain of volcanoes as the plates move above them."

So you make a good point that volcanic hotspots are not related to tectonic plate boundaries, but it does not say that they somehow call tectonic plate activity into question. In fact I seem to recall that edges of tectonic plates are more connected with earthquakes than volcanoes. It is better to understand the whole thing rather than just pick one handy line out of context.

[Difflugia]

Interesting claim. By what was taught to me in atheistic scientific oriented school, the Icelandic volcanoes are not related to the ridge. They are "hotspot" volcanoes, which is a different thing.

It's both.

[POI]

[Replying to 1213 in post #74]

I see you have, again, opted for the "nuh-uh" response. I do not blame you. Readers can go through our exchange and see why my positions are justified. I'm not going to repeat them here, yet again, just so we can do another complete circle.

[POI]

Nobody cares what you disagree with, now do they care what seems silly to you. They care (or should) what you can debunk with good arguments, not deny with unsupported dismissal.

Looks like the code for 1213 has been cracked, in post #4 here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41906)

[TRANSPONDER]

Nobody cares what you disagree with, now do they care what seems silly to you. They care (or should) what you can debunk with good arguments, not deny with unsupported dismissal.

Looks like the code for 1213 has been cracked, in post #4 here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41906)

I don't want to talk about people when they aren't present, but the whole Christian apologetic, Cult or religion - think and tribal human think and human thought in general interests me. because i have done religion in general and it is like a round earth or moon landings - dealing with the denial

And there is so much denial and conspiracy theories from 9/11 to Martian Aztecs sculpting monster faces.

And so much depends on ignorance and even wilful ignorance. Questions are fine. Denial of good answers is not. It works both ways. In the UFO world, I saw both culthink, science denial and wilful ignorance on the UFO side, but dismissal and mocking on the skeptical side. I know why, 'If you can't explain every claim I make you must accept my claim'. It doesn't work like that but cult -think imagines it does. So the skeptics had to shove it all away. We know how well 'I don't know the answer, but it must be perfectly natural' (materialist default) will go with the Believers.

Because Faith and Faith not only moulds and models thought in religion (how often do they spout the same slogans - even in Buddhist culture, they seem to have been taught what to say - but is in every darn discussion I had from mocking and sneering at something they personally didn't like, to various work colleagues with entrenched positions over everything from sport to politics, and using every trick in the book to win from getting red in the face and shouting to talking and talking - the Gish gallop and watch a Matt Dillahuntuy phone in to se how theists just want to rattle on and forget discussion.

I'll refer back to a debate first off on my other forum on Plantinga and instinctive or revealed knowledge. The upshot was that human instinct is evolved for survival not to tell us what is really out there, and the protagonists on the Theist side would not accept that even when they had said it themselves, and instead went on various side issues. It started putting in place faithbased thinking which is beginning with the faithclaim and then fiddling the evidence (in that case, instinctive problem solving and fight or flight reaction) and trying to make it evidence for god.

But there is more Once it was clear that innate instinct proves evolution, not God, you'd think they would drop that and try something else. But they kept banging away at the proverbial dead horse. That was when I realised that Jesus' face on the temple veil is the concealed entrance to Oz and it is not Jesus, the Bible or Christianity they are fighting for, but their own rightness, just like all the others.

That is the clue - politics, sport, music - it was never about that, but about themselves.

Here endeth the lesson, and I'm in the mood for music...