Assessing why a Black man in America would be a Christian

[BayAreaTodd827]

Have I been bamboozled into believing that the Christian faith is beneficial to me? Why have I chosen to be Christian in a "Christian nation" that historically has sought to deprive my race and gender of freedom and dignity?  

I have lived some decades. I have seen people, in the name of Christianity, trample over others for their own self-serving purposes.  I have witnessed men, by persuasive oratory, fool others into believing that such oratorical skill somehow makes them an authority and proprietor of truth and righteousness. I have seen this game's inevitable result - lies exposed.

I have observed the game played out time and again. Sometimes it is played by those who enter the Christian faith minded to “play�.  At other times, it is played by those who entered the faith with a sincere passion for God, but at some point they became disillusioned by it all and decide to simply go along with the “play-book� because this is what the majority seem to be doing - feigning perfection.

With my education and exposure to all of this, isn’t it about time that I give up the “Christian� mantle?  After all, I am a pretty-well informed and educated person. I completed undergrad and graduate school, and I've traveled a bit.  Again, I also know the games people play (whether I choose to indulge in them or not).

Am I not perpetuating the fraud by endorsing a belief system that is replete with hypocrites and deceivers?

The uncomplicated response to the last question posed is, NO! I stand by Christianity based on its own merit, not based on the actions of people who claim to be followers.

The not so easy related question might be, how, with my knowledge, understanding, and experience, am I going to convince others (particularly someone who has been jaded by what they’ve seen by others), to become a Christian?  

Another related question is why even bother to try?

In terms of the "why bother" question, it is because I am duty bound as a Christian to promote the Christian faith. This is part of being "faithful".  Whether I succeed is outside my control. My love for God and His Son/my savior compels me to try. 

It is my position that the Christian faith (based on the scriptural standard contained in what is commonly called the Bible) is the most beneficial for mankind. Bar none. It is beneficial in this life as well as for it’s promise of eternal life. This applies to me as an African-American and all mankind.

I invite dialogue on the topic. I am not seeking to judge anyone. I readily admit that in my dialogue my aim will be to seek to defend the faith I hold, AND, to encourage whomever might read this to become as I am - A Christian.  Feel free to respond publicly or privately. I'll respond in kind.

I look forward to mutually respectful and non-judgmental dialogue.

A prelude to my thoughts...

The apostle Paul communicated a fundamental truth about the expectation and need for every able-bodied person to grow up and make decision in accordance with this growth.  In 1 Corinthians 13:11 (King James Version) he says – “When I was a child I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man I put away childish things.�

 In short, while I may have grown up in and around the Christian faith (and of course was influenced by this upbringing) I am not a Christian today simply as a result of that influence.  I have lived a life where I have seen and heard many things.  The culmination of this has lead me to choosing Jesus Christ. A simple but fully excercised choice.

[BayAreaTodd827]

[Replying to post 137 by Blastcat]

Hello, BlastCat.

First, allow me to apologize to you for saying you were "full of yourself". I can see how that would be perceived as an insult. I should not have said it.

With regard to your "challenges", I will just say the majority of them are propositions you created, then attempted to get me to defend. Sorry, but I'm not willing to play that game. I'll defend what I've said regarding Christianity, not your rearrangement of what I said.

In addition, you've already said you are an Atheist. I've already said I'm a Christian. I am willing to "defend" my faith based on "the Bible" because that is the source of my information regarding the faith I hold. Is this really all that unreasonable? Likewise, my stance regarding the "benefits" of Christianity for all mankind also derive from that same source. This is my belief. I don't think I have changed this position. So, to criticize me for my position seems a bit out of sorts. I have been consistent.

My point is, we have no standard upon which we can agree. What you believe is "subjective". What I believe is "subjective". You reject mine. I reject yours. Where do you propose we go from here?

BayAreaTodd827 wrote:


Now, BlastCat, you "pounced" on a subject that would have been best left alone. But, I told you sometimes cats pounce without fully considering situations.

BlastCat Wrote:
Perhaps.

But I think the whole POINT of this thread is "Assessing why a Black man in America would be a Christian"

I'm assessing that with your help.

Yes, that is true. However, I have repeatedly stated that my "assessment" is based on the merits of Christianity itself (as contained in scripture). It is a religious based assessment.

BayAreaTodd827 wrote:


You've presumed to chastise me about being a Christian in light of my slave fore-parents in America. Bad choice.



BlastCate wrote:
I thought that assessing why a Black man in America would be a Christian was the point here... You brought it up.

Was that a bad choice?

Not in my estimation. Unfortunately, the color of a person's skin is still relevant in this age (even among some who claim to be Christian). In light of perceptions about race (e.g. the Ham curse) I felt the need to address it as a person who is African-American. Many seem to be preoccupied with "slavery". I've communicated my position (based on scripture). If you want to continue with the insulting claims that I'm obeying the "slave master" have at. I know in whom I believe. I know my ancestral and American history. I'm very comfortable with my choice -- mainly because (as I said in the original post) I've fully considered it.

BayAreaTodd827 wrote:


I was raised by people who lived it. You, my friend, should not have "pounced" on this.



BlastCat wrote:
And yet, you want to defend the religious beliefs of slave owners.
Be my guest.

There you go again. Getting very boring. You've said yourself that not all Christians interpret scripture the same. I even agreed with you. Remember that? Isn't it possible (in fact actually very likely) that my interpretation of the scriptures differ from the "slave owners" you keep mentioning? If you disagree with me that's fine. But, please try to be consistent.

BlastCat Wrote:

I'm quite the daring kind of guy. Smile

If you find what I have to dare say offensive, I suggest you take it up with the moderators.

Complain.. Use the report function. ( Click on the ! at the top left hand corner of the post, select what you think is the violation, and then give a little blurb as to why )

I'm not the type to run and complain when someone says something I perceive as offensive. I'll tell you my thoughts and move on. Thanks for letting me know the process.

BayAreaTodd827 wrote:


Or, do you suggest I denounce America too?



BlastCat wrote:
I wonder why you would imagine that I would suggest something like that?

Isn't this the natural progression from what you've communicated about "slavery" and Christianity? It seems consistency would mandate that this is your suggestion. Am I wrong? Can you explain?

BayAreaTodd827 wrote:

BlastCat wrote:
8. I challenge you to defend the notion that the Bible doesn't have very outdated ideas about morality, psychology, science, and ANYTHING else.

BayAreaTodd827 wrote:
People are STILL prideful; people STILL covet; people STILL crave that which satisfies the body.

BlastCat wrote:
Proposition left undefended.

I was talking about the Bible's ideas about how to DEAL with those problems.
Try again.

I say that the Bible has VERY outdated ideas about human behavior and science in general.

Outdated by about 2000 years.

The Christian teaching for how to deal with such things is "love". Love for God first, then love for your fellow man (i.e. Luke 10:25-28). Is this really outdated? Sorry to hear that's your view.

BayAreaTodd827 wrote:


You ignored my question about Artificial intelligence (AI). Created? Yes or no?



BlastCat Wrote:
I thought that I had answered it.

I might have not answered the question.. I ACTUALLY try to keep these posts short, if you can buy that.

I will be glad to answer the question now, since it seems important that I do:


Yes, AI has been created.

I don't see the relevance of human creation to any god creation debate.
Care to elaborate?

Absoltutely. Artificial Intelligence (AI) had a genesis. That genesis is the ingenuity of man. The more instances of AI that come about the more "empirical data" we have to demonstrate its creation. We have Human Intelligence. It originated somewhere. I believe it originated with God demonstrated (as I've already said multiple times) by the "empirical evidence" of your and my existence (along with billions of other people). Where do you think it originated?

"In a lab somewhere on the planet earth, man created artificial intelligence that would be able to learn and mimic certain human traits and characteristics..." (this might be written one day..).

The following is already written (in that very old book you've mentioned)...
Genesis 1:26-27 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So, God created man in his image...

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 139 by BayAreaTodd827]




[center]Undefended challenges : 19
Agreements : 11[/center]

First, allow me to apologize to you for saying you were "full of yourself". I can see how that would be perceived as an insult. I should not have said it.

Apology accepted.

With regard to your "challenges", I will just say the majority of them are propositions you created, then attempted to get me to defend. Sorry, but I'm not willing to play that game. I'll defend what I've said regarding Christianity, not your rearrangement of what I said.

I HAVE to try to understand what it is you are claiming here.
I HAVE to use my own words.

If I don't get it perfectly right, CORRECT me, explain to me in a way that I can comprehend ( by, perhaps seeking agreements ) what it IS that you are proposing in here. I have to guess to a certain extent. But I don't make this stuff up out of thin air.

Forgive me, for I am OFTEN just plain wrong.
That happens to me a lot.

So, if I am MISTAKEN in what you are trying to propose, clear it up.
THEN, perhaps you WILL have to defend the proposition, if I do not think that it is justified. I won't just agree with you for no reason.

I need a good REASON to be able to agree with your propositions.
If I can't agree.. I have to CHALLENGE the proposition, until I do agree with it, or you drop it as a bad idea to begin with.

In addition, you've already said you are an Atheist.

Thanks for noticing.

I've already said I'm a Christian.

I haven't forgotten.

I am willing to "defend" my faith based on "the Bible" because that is the source of my information regarding the faith I hold. Is this really all that unreasonable?

I like to TRY to keep my replies to you shorter, because it seems that we are repeating ourselves a lot here. I know I'm an atheist, and that you are a Christian.

We can agree with that.

I already wrote that you can propose anything that you like, and you can defend what you propose in any way that you see fit.

I am also free to challenge what you write as I see fit. ( within the parameters of the rules in here, of course )

Likewise, my stance regarding the "benefits" of Christianity for all mankind also derive from that same source. This is my belief. I don't think I have changed this position. So, to criticize me for my position seems a bit out of sorts. I have been consistent.

I am not challenging that you haven't ever changed your position. You don't have to defend THAT proposition, my friend.

You can believe anything that you like.
I wont challenge that you believe something or not.. that's your concern, not mine.

But I will challenge propositions that I am not sure are true.

My point is, we have no standard upon which we can agree.

I think we have evidence for the proposition that you are wrong about that one.

We seem to have SOME kind of mutual standard.
Evidence for that?

We already have found 5 things to agree on.

What you believe is "subjective". What I believe is "subjective". You reject mine. I reject yours. Where do you propose we go from here?

We might not agree on subjective assessments.
There is more to life than mere "subjective" truth.

If you say that your god exists, for example, is a TRUE proposition, I can ask you if you mean in a subjective way that would only be true for YOU... or in an objective way that would be true for ALL OF US.

If you are proposing that your god exists in an objective way, then you will be challenged on that proposition. IF something is objectively true for YOU, it should be also objectively true for ALL OF US.

Otherwise, yeah.. you prefer one god over another or whatever.
You might find that the best ice cream flavor is chocolate. Best god is Yahweh.

I might say that I prefer vanilla and Vishnu and then the conversation is over.
Bravo for us and our "subjective truths".

Is that the kind of god belief you have?
Merely subjective like that?

Or are you proposing that your god is more real than that?
Or is your god something that you would LIKE to be objectively true?

Yes, that is true. However, I have repeatedly stated that my "assessment" is based on the merits of Christianity itself (as contained in scripture). It is a religious based assessment.

Let me get this straight:
________________

Are you telling me that you are basing your assessment of Christianity by using the criteria set up by Christians? Isn't that a guarantee for a quite GLOWING assessment?

What were you expecting, a CRITICAL assessment of Christianity by Christians?

________________

But here we are in a DEBATE forum, my friend.

Did you come in here merely to tell us about your assessment?
I thought you might have wanted to know how other people assess it, too.

And, you know, maybe debate the issue.

______________

FOR THE RECORD:

I am fully prepared to DEFEND the proposition that it's appropriate to debate within the confines of a forum specifically DESIGNED ( dare I say created ) FOR debates.

Go ahead, challenge me.

______________

You've presumed to chastise me about being a Christian in light of my slave fore-parents in America. Bad choice.

First time around I didn't react to your choice of words here... I don't CHASTISE you for anything unless you do something that is hurtful to others. What I am ACTUALLY doing is giving you my point of view. If you take it as a chastisement, maybe you can see something wrong with your thinking.

I gave you my point of view because I DO believe there is something seriously wrong with your thinking on this.

Not in my estimation. Unfortunately, the color of a person's skin is still relevant in this age (even among some who claim to be Christian).

"To this age"?

You don't think that racial injustice actually exists in this age?
You might not even believe that SLAVERY exists in this age.

You might live in a bigot free part of the world, but you might still be able to watch the news from time to time. Racial violence and bigotry and hate happen in other parts of the world in which we both live.

If you want to continue with the insulting claims that I'm obeying the "slave master" have at.

I didn't actually write that you were obeying the slave master... but I could make a case that your god IS one of those.. so it fits.

I don't presume that you are a slave NOW.. but that you are following the very same religion that was used to oppress at least some of your forbears.

So,

_________________

FOR THE RECORD:

I am willing to defend the proposition that you are obeying the slave master.. i.e. "God".

Challenge the proposition if you see fit.

_________________

I know in whom I believe.

I challenge that proposition, of course.
I don't think that you "KNOW" any "WHOM" at all.

In fact, I even challenge the proposition that you understand my challenge above.

You might BELIEVE in a "God", but I challenge the proposition that you KNOW IT, or KNOW what it is. To say that God is a "whom" of course, implies that it ks a PERSON... and I also challenge that you do not REALLY know that, either.

In fact, I'd be prepared to defend the proposition that you don't really know ANYTHING AT ALL about the characteristics or existence of the god you seem to be basing your whole life on.


One thing you can say about Blastcat, he's a challenging kind of cat, that Blastcat.
Ain't, he?

I know my ancestral and American history.

I am happy to hear of it.
I have no good reason to challenge that claim.

However, just to show you how I think :

" He might think he KNOWS, and yet, could be WRONG."

I'm very comfortable with my choice -- mainly because (as I said in the original post) I've fully considered it.

I am not challenging how comfortable you are.
I gave you plenty of other challenges, and now.. I have added one in this post.

We are at 18 undefended propositions.

And 5 agreements.

NOT that I keep count or anything

You've said yourself that not all Christians interpret scripture the same.

I'll take that as an agreement.

Number 6.

I'd go even further these days, though.

I have a pet theory ( unverified, untested purely anecdotal if you challenge me on it, I will quickly concede that it's not a fact ) that there are probably as many interpretations of the God Hypothesis and the Bible as there are people who have an interest in either.

Everyone seems to have a different take on what "God" is ... and everyone and his goat has opinions about what Bible verses mean.

I even agreed with you. Remember that?

I try to remember to notice and make a big thing about all of our agreements.
I don't actually remember that one in particular.

How about we say it's number 7?

Isn't it possible (in fact actually very likely) that my interpretation of the scriptures differ from the "slave owners" you keep mentioning?

Yes, it's POSSIBLE.

Agreement 8

It's also possible that alien abductions are actually happening to someone in the world as we speak.

Do we agree?

One thing that is more than just POSSIBLE is that the slave owner and decedents of slaves BOTH use the same kind of Bible.

Do we agree?

Would you also agree that you are following the same rule book ( Bible ) that the slave owners used to condone their human trafficking, trade, and forced labor of their human property? There are SOME passages in the Bible that you might be ignoring or whitewashing somehow that act as a MANUAL for how to treat slaves.

It also gives advice to SLAVES on how to behave towards their slave owners. I think it said "very nicely" or something like that. Everyone was so very nice back in the day, don't you think? As long of course, as the slaves kept their PLACE.

Do you agree with that?

The Bible is a GUIDE book for slaves and slave owners, in parts, that Holy Book.
I have a problem with that book.

You don't seem to at all. Apparently, you can DEFEND those parts of the Bible.

Go right ahead.
Defend to us those parts of the Bible.

I'm fascinated by that kind of stuff.. another reason why I'm IN here... To learn how religious people THINK, yo.

Your choice, of course, but I sure do have my OPINION about it, don't I?

I think it's an extremely bad choice of religion to follow and ESPECIALLY for a black person living ANYWHERE on the planet.

Just my assessment, of course.
Not yours.

If you disagree with me that's fine. But, please try to be consistent.

PLEASE TRY?
Oh, for sure.

I'm a very trying kind of cat.
Ain't I?


BlastCat wrote:
I wonder why you would imagine that I would suggest something like that?
[/quote]

Isn't this the natural progression from what you've communicated about "slavery" and Christianity? It seems consistency would mandate that this is your suggestion. Am I wrong? Can you explain?

"Natural progression"?

How about "Logical progression" .. you know.. 1,2,3,4, and so on to the conclusion?

I think your reasoning is wrong.. it's a leap from your religious beliefs to ... something or other about your politics and something or other about your patriotism... I don't really see the connections.. I think it's quite irrelevant.. and none of that was my intention. Please, promote your country AND your religion.

In fact, please, DEFEND your country and your religion.

In this case, your guess was wrong.
And you have trouble expressing your logical progressions.

They mostly all seem to go...1, 4. I'm looking for what would POSSIBLY be in the middle. Now.. to get to your CONCLUSION.. I'd have to take a flying leap.

I'm a very lazy cat.
I only leap for kibble.

Easy prey.

Otherwise, try to move me from my comfy perch today... good luck.
Make your case COMPELLING.. make it EASY for me to follow.. CONVINCE me a little.

Waving a belief at me ... fails.
I will stare at you and yawn.

Kinda like a cat would do.


BlastCat wrote:
8. I challenge you to defend the notion that the Bible doesn't have very outdated ideas about morality, psychology, science, and ANYTHING else.
[/quote]

The Christian teaching for how to deal with such things is "love". Love for God first, then love for your fellow man.

There are THOUSANDS of "Christian teachings" my friend.
As many teachings as there are TEACHERS, I'm afraid.

I quite lost track of how many Christian TEACHERS have wanted to TEACH me.
I will count our agreements and the challenges you don't accept to defend.

I kinda like numbers....

Love is an emotion.
Love is not knowledge about morality, psychology, science or ANYTHING like that.

What do we LEARN in the Bible.. outdated IDEAS about morality, psychology, science and everything like that.

Every religion in the WORLD insists that we "love one another" .. in fact most ATHEISTS insist that kind of really OBVIOUS kind of thing.

That cliche, that love is lovely may not be OUTDATED, but it sure is trite.. we know a lot more about human behavior and other sciences than we did 2000 years ago.

In fact, in the last 50 years, very careful scientists have taught a whole LOT about how the human thinks and behaves. That would be NEW UP TO DATE information, my friend. And NOT what they might have imagined 2000 years ago.

This proposition has been left undefended due to a mess of language. "Up to date" seems to mean "very old bromide about how we should love one another" to you.

And the god belief IS extremely out of date.
It's 2000 years old, that one, too.

It's time for some folks to catch up.

You ignored my question about Artificial intelligence (AI). Created? Yes or no?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) had a genesis.

Agreement number 8.

That genesis is the ingenuity of man.

Agreement number nine.

The more instances of AI that come about the more "empirical data" we have to demonstrate its creation.

Agreement number 10.

( I thought we could not agree on anything ? )

We have Human Intelligence.

These agreements are pretty easy to do.
Agree again. Number 11

It originated somewhere.

AI probably originated in some human's imagination.

You are not AT ALL being challenged on the proposition that HUMANS exist, but that your GOD does. Try to focus.

Humans..... the only thing that we truly know about that is what we are discovering by scientific methods.

I don't actually know what you mean by "It originated somewhere. "... Do you mean "around the time of the Big Bang? "

In any case, could you clarify what you meant?
What PLACE are you imagining that the human mind originated?

Because when someone uses the word "somewhere", it usually MEANS some PLACE.. some WHERE... so.. WHAT "WHERE" are you thinking about?

I believe it originated with God demonstrated (as I've already said multiple times) by the "empirical evidence" of your and my existence (along with billions of other people).

So, the "where" you were hypothesizing was "God"?
God is a PLACE?

You might not have noticed, but you went from "It originated somewhere. " To.. It originated WITH God.

But let's not quibble about the sloppiness of your language. I make a lot of mistakes as well.. the THING is.. you have this belief in a creator god who created humans.

And the EVIDENCE for the truth of this belief is that you have a belief that a god created humans.

The only EVIDENCE so far for your belief that you have offered IS your belief.
I can only tell you how hopeless that bit of reasoning is.

In any case, I cannot accept it as any kind of EMPIRICAL evidence for your god hypothesis. Sorry.

I tried to explain to you why I cannot accept our existence as evidence for the existence of your god.

Repeating that quite remarkable proposition over and over wont make it make any more sense. You are saying that SINCE we exist, God does.

And you keep repeating that.
All I can say is that I can't really imagine a worse logical progression than that one.

There is NO logical progression between your premise and your conclusion, my friend. In other words you demonstrate NO reasoning at all. NONE.

ZERO

If you imagine that not giving ANY reason for your conclusion OTHER than we exist is a good DEFENSE of God's existence, you are sadly mistaken.

This is ONLY my opinion, but it's based on the little I know about who logical arguments work. ( or should work, in any case )

This is how I would re-write your argument for god's existence based on our existence:

1. Humans exist
2. Therefore God does.

The fact that humans exist MIGHT BE evidence for your god hypothesis, but you have NOT come close to explaining WHY.

No logical progression between 1 and 2, you see.

NONE

The proposition remains completely undefended.

Where do you think it originated?

Dunno.

But my TOTAL IGNORANCE about that DOES NOT SERVE as empirical evidence FOR your god. You have made the argument from ignorance, you did NOT offer us ANY empirical evidence yet.

But you claim to have a lot.
I think your claim or ALL that empirical evidence falls flat on it's face.

_______________

FOR THE RECORD:

A logical argument ( even one that has a HOPE of being valid ) is NOT empirical anything. I might say that your god doesn't exist because of the existence of humans.

Your reasoning is as non-existent as your "empirical evidence", my friend.

And if we go by your empirical data and reasoning, therefore, no god.
Not yet, anyway.

_______________

"In a lab somewhere on the planet earth, man created artificial intelligence that would be able to learn and mimic certain human traits and characteristics..." (this might be written one day..).

We already have that.
I don't see your point.

The following is already written (in that very old book you've mentioned)...
Genesis 1:26-27

I will accept that what you quote is accurate.
I challenge the proposition that it is true.

That's undefended challenge number 19.

[BayAreaTodd827]

[Replying to post 140 by Blastcat]


Good morning, BlastCat. In response to your last post..

This forum is called 'debating Christianity'. I entered on that basis. It is not debating the existence of God".

If you want to "challenge" the existence of God that's your choice. But I'm not going to supplant the basis for my belief system (Scripture) by agreeing to follow yours (whatever that may be). I never said I would do so.

Accordingly, I stand by what is written in the Bible, which means I do, and will continue to, rely on God's Word to defend my faith.

You've asked for my proposal. It is simply that the Christian faith is more beneficial to mankind (in this world and eternally) than any other belief system. Bar none. See my original post.

If you want to attack the tenets as given in the source of the Christian faith, then I won't hesitate to "defend" it. Scripture is an "objective" standard though I acknowledge there have been many "subjective" interpretations (e.g. the Ham curse).

I thought this was pretty clear from my original post. Perhaps not.

I've indulged you a bit by my AI question. The point of it was to show reasonableness of AI creation by the vast amounts of "empirical" data to show that AI was created by Human Beings. Similarly, it is more reasonable than not, based in part on the empirical evidence of human existence and ingenuity (intelligence), that we were created by someone (sorry if I failed to get that point across). I believe that Being to be God.

I've noticed throughout these postings that you move the carrot ever so slightly when you're stuck. For instance, this all began with you saying there was "no evidence" for the existence of God. When we established that circumstantial evidence is still evidence, then you said there was no "compelling evidence". You began to focus on my "lots of empirical evidence" statement. I provided you with the billions of human beings as "empirical evidence" by comparing us to the creation of AI, and the empirical data available to establish AI was created by Human Beings. I used this to point out that it is more reasonable than not that we ( human beings) were created.

Now, you're saying I've provided no "logical progression" and "no reasoning".

My friend, again, I like to cut to the chase. You're asking me to "convince" you that there is God. There is an appropriate saying - "you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink". I never said I would convince you.

You're correct, we can (and have) "agree" on a bunch of things. But, none of those items (please correct me if I'm wrong) establish a substantive objective standard by which we both are willing to abide.

Do you agree?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 141 by BayAreaTodd827]


[center]12 Agreements now[/center]

This forum is called 'debating Christianity'. I entered on that basis. It is not debating the existence of God".

That's right.
I was under the impression that your Christian religion has "God" as a core belief.

If you want to "challenge" the existence of God that's your choice.

I only challenge ideas that I can't immediately agree with.
If you don't bring up God at all.. fine.

No challenges about God.

But I'm not going to supplant the basis for my belief system (Scripture) by agreeing to follow yours (whatever that may be). I never said I would do so.

_____________

FOR THE RECORD:

1. Propose anything that you like in any way that you see fit.
2. I will challenge those propositions that I can't immediately agree with.
3. Accept the challenges or not is UP TO YOU.
4. You can defend the propositions that you are being challenged on in any way you like. Your defense is YOURS. I don't pretend to dictate to you how to defend or indeed if you DO defend. UP TO YOU MY FRIEND.
_____________

Accordingly, I stand by what is written in the Bible, which means I do, and will continue to, rely on God's Word to defend my faith.

The Bible is God's word.
So you defend God's word by using God's word.

A circular defense, if I ever saw one.

I could just as easily use the Harry Potter books to defend the ideas I have about the Harry Potter books.

It would be just as circular and useless, too.
Empirical data for Harry Potter's existence?

Look at the many books about Harry Potter !!
In THOSE millions of books, Harry Potter is REAL.

You've asked for my proposal. It is simply that the Christian faith is more beneficial to mankind (in this world and eternally) than any other belief system. Bar none. See my original post.

It's not surprising to me that a Christian would feel that way. I don't see any evidence for your belief being about something TRUE, however. We are talking about all that empirical evidence, right?

At least I though you mentioned that.

It's empirically true that Harry Potter books exist.
In the stories, Harry Potter is a real wizard.

The point of it was to show reasonableness of AI creation by the vast amounts of "empirical" data to show that AI was created by Human Beings.

Yes, we have tons of empirical data to defend THAT proposition.
That's why I don't feel the need to challenge you on it.

Yeah, humans have pretty much invented AI.
I challenge the proposition that a god created anything at all.

Similarly, it is more reasonable than not, based in part on the empirical evidence of human existence and ingenuity (intelligence), that we were created by someone (sorry if I failed to get that point across). I believe that Being to be God.

That does NOT work at all.

Just because HUMANS invent, doesn't mean that you have demonstrated ANYTHING whatsoever about your god hypothesis.

That would be zero.

1. You are NOT being challenged to defend the proposition that HUMANS create.
2. You are being challenged to defend the proposition that GOD does.

For instance, this all began with you saying there was "no evidence" for the existence of God. When we established that circumstantial evidence is still evidence, then you said there was no "compelling evidence".

Circumstantial evidence is not compelling evidence.
What's the use of providing us with evidence that just isn't compelling at all?

Are YOU so easily convinced?

Correlation isn't causation, my friend.

You show a CORRELATION between humans existing and God existing. but you do not show the CAUSE one way or the other.. there is ZERO link between the two propositions. That's ZILTCH, my friend. Hardly even a coma.

You began to focus on my "lots of empirical evidence" statement.

Since the start, pretty much, yes.
You made the claim, and now you seem to have trouble defending it.

What you have done is to make propositions that I had to challenge... now instead of just ONE you have to defend, you have 19. Good luck with that.

Where IS "all of that" empirical evidence you said there was?

I provided you with the billions of human beings as "empirical evidence" by comparing us to the creation of AI, and the empirical data available to establish AI was created by Human Beings. I used this to point out that it is more reasonable than not that we ( human beings) were created.

So, your evidence is "It is more reasonable than not" .....

But it's not so very reasonable to me.
You haven't yet SAID why it's so very reasonable to you.

There is ZERO reasoning presented, my friend.
NONE.

I would not call it ALL that empirical evidence of any god.
I would call it NONE of the empirical evidence of any god.

You have presented empirical evidence that HUMANS exist.
I wouldn't bother challenging you on THAT proposition, and I am NOT challenging you on that proposition.

Now, you're saying I've provided no "logical progression" and "no reasoning".

That's correct.
You have presented to us NONE.

You offer us a premise and a conclusion.

It's raining, therefore God.
It's sunny, therefore God.
It's not sunny, therefore God.

God doesn't exist, therefore God.
Humans exist, therefore God.

If humans didn't exist, we could attribute that to God, just as easily.

Human therefore God is not a logical progression at all.

You believe in a god that created everything, so you present everything as evidence for your belief. It's a CIRCULAR argument that starts OFF with the conclusion that God created everything only to end UP at the conclusion that God created everything.

The only reasoning is completely fallacious.
And you don't even understand how to spell it out.

But I do, to a point.
I'm not a master.

Don't expect that.
Expect a bit of logic 101, though, that's as far as I got.

It's very obvious to someone who has spent an hour or two learning about how to FORM a logical progression that you don't know how.

Just argumentation 101 would be of help to you in DEBATES that have to RELY on logical arguments.

So far, what you offer are NOT valid logical arguments. Invalid arguments cannot serve as valid defenses. We have to AT LEAST form valid arguments in here.

Otherwise, lots of cat pouncing.

You're asking me to "convince" you that there is God.

Wrong.

I am asking you to defend the proposition that there is a God, and IF you defend it well, I will be convinced, quite naturally. That's how defending a proposition works.

You have NOT defended 19.

But that's ok.
Maybe we can leave that alone and try to gather up some more agreements.
What do you say?

You're correct, we can (and have) "agree" on a bunch of things.

That's agreement number 12

But, none of those items (please correct me if I'm wrong) establish a substantive objective standard by which we both are willing to abide.

Do you agree?

Not even a little.

[BayAreaTodd827]

[Replying to post 142 by Blastcat]

Hello.

Keep on blasting, Cat! The fundamental matter between you and me cannot be resolved. You do not believe God exists, thus you necessarily reject Christianity. I believe God exists, and I believe the narrative regarding Jesus as contained in what is commonly referred to as The Bible. I really enjoy reading your posts, but your Blasting ways do nothing to change this basic problem.

In my "subjective" estimation evidence of God is all around us. This certainly includes, but is not limited to, the billions of people on earth. The billions of people who comprise this "objective" evidence is quite compelling - to me.

Just as it is (in my opinion) nonsensical to think AI did not originate with "intelligent Beings", it is at least equally nonsensical to outright reject the (as you call it) "God Hypothesis". When I asked where we originated you stated that you have "no clue". You're a critic of "creation" with no viable answers. You are very entertaining, and your ability to break down the rules of debate, logic, etc. is interesting. But, you still have "no clue".

With all this Blasting all over the place, I almost lost track of my original point. I believe the Biblical narrative regarding God and Jesus the Christ. I believe that there is nothing or no one on this earth who can compare to my creator. And, there is no promise more appealing than what is offered in the Christian narrative. Despite what men/women have done, the fundamental teachings of and about Christ are more beneficial to mankind than anything in the world.

We can banter back and forth about structural argument formations and the like, but the bottom line is what is truth. You, BlastCat, have "no clue". By the love and grace of God, I do. God's word is truth (John 17:17). I'm sticking with Him.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 143 by BayAreaTodd827]

[center]

When is the defense going to be happening?[/center]

Keep on blasting, Cat!

It's actually quite difficult to blast well. I'm trying to develop a good technique.
Not there yet, I'm afraid.

A lot of people aren't appreciating my efforts.
They think of me as "rude", you see.

The fundamental matter between you and me cannot be resolved.

I completely disagree with that statement.
I have lots of empirical evidence to the contrary.

If you do not DESIRE to agree on a fundamental matter, then you are correct.
If you shut the DOOR to any discussion, then your wish will be fulfilled.
If you close your MIND, nothing new will get in.

But if you intend to discuss how you arrived at your beliefs, we just MAY be able to agree on a lot of things. But we won't ever KNOW if we never TRY.

A lot of Christians have agreed with atheists in the past. In fact, I know of a theist IN HERE who has agreed with an atheist 12 times.

Other Christians have agreed all the way.. To the "fundamental matter".

Many ex-Christians who are now atheists, tell us how discussions with atheist is one of the MAIN reasons why they de-converted. It may come as a shock, but if you want empirical evidence, there are many books from ex-Christians .. even ex-priests.

It was an open and honest discussion like this that did it.
Of course, I don't expect miracles.. this DOES take time... and a bit of an interest in honestly pursuing the reasoning behind some very cherished notions. People are RIGHT to be afraid to defend the faith. That road CAN LEAD TO not having any more.

Maybe that's one of the reasons why people don't defend their faith with any rigor.
IF we look TOO close at the reasoning.. we might have to change our mind about our CONCLUSIONS.

And if the whole POINT to life is to stick with beliefs, changing one's MIND about it won't lead to MORE belief, but less. I can see how this process can be scary.

I don't blame people from not accepting challenges to their faith.
Took ME a long time to do that.

But if you are going to build a great border wall between us.. of course you won't be able to change your mind and agree with me on a fundamental level.

You won't agree if you don't WANT to agree.
I'm the kinda cat who WANTS agreements.

I thought you agreed that agreements were a GOOD thing?
Change your mind?

You might be CORRECT that we may not be able to "resolve" the issue. BUT I know for a FACT that we can go a very long way. And I know FOR A FACT that Christians have deconverted. We can, if we so choose, reach MANY agreements. How do I know this?

Because we already have a dozen of them.

But if we STOP ... of course, we won't get any more of that good stuff, will we?


If you wont defend your faith.. well... we can't DISCUSS your defense, now can we?

Defend the faith or not.. that' up to you.

You do not believe God exists, thus you necessarily reject Christianity.

I don''t have to reject EVERYTHING about Christianity. At least SOME parts are good.
But I'm not a believer, that's for sure.

I sure don't think that the proposition "God exists" is a true one.
I challenge people to defend the proposition that it IS a true one.

People take my challenges as being oh so rude.

I believe God exists, and I believe the narrative regarding Jesus as contained in what is commonly referred to as The Bible. I really enjoy reading your posts, but your Blasting ways do nothing to change this basic problem.

It's only a problem if we want it to be.
Look, it's ok.

Some people BRAG about being so closed minded.
I get it. It's OK.

[center]
I don't think that being closed minded is the best way to learn NEW stuff.[/center]


You can believe whatever you like.
We aren't disputing your freedom to believe in whatever you want.

Be a Muslim or a Hindu or a Christian fundamentalist.
I don't CARE about that.

What I would challenge is the reasoning that led you to the beliefs.
You have 19 undefended propositions concerning your reasoning left hanging.

To me, a belief is a conviction.
Same same.

We are convinced by what we think is true.
We believe what we THINK is true.

[center]
Of course, we are also very often WRONG.[/center]


If how we assessed the proposition was FAULTY, the belief might be based on false information. I challenge the faulty methods that people use to arrive at the beliefs that they have. It's the way that people THINK that matters to me the most.. not what they CONCLUDE. I would debate a Mormon or a Hindu or a Muslim or a Scientologist a conspiracy theorist and so on EXACTLY the same way.

These challenges aren't about your conclusion that God exists.. it's about your REASONING.. that "defense" you mentioned you were willing to do when you first showed up here. Ok, please, do that. Defend away.

By defending I would have HOPED that you would be accepting CHALLENGES.

I would challenge ANY proposition presented as reasonable that I think is irrational. With a good defense, the person might just convince ME....

I am very often WRONG, you see.
I have to keep an open mind here.....


Do you agree that it's important to keep an open mind about this?


I don't really give two cents for the particular CONTENT of their conclusions. In these debates, I am WAY more interested in how religious people think. And one of the best techniques that I have found is to seek for AGREEMENTS... when we agree.. I KNOW what they actually mean.

When I don't agree, it might mean that I just didn't get it.
Try to remember that I'm always looking for agreements.

In my "subjective" estimation evidence of God is all around us.

Thank you for the clarification.
As soon as you put the word "subjective" in front of a word, it means "To me, and not necessarily to anyone else."

To me, anchovies are yummy on pizza.
I don't expect that to be TRUE for everyone else.

Subjectively, anything can be "true".
Its TRUE that anchovies make a pizza TRULY great.

In any case, anchovies are very COMPELLING to my taste buds.

This certainly includes, but is not limited to, the billions of people on earth.
The billions of people who comprise this "objective" evidence is quite compelling - to me.

TO YOU... Ok.
You aren't at all talking about an objective kind of truth.

You are talking about what's true in a subjective way.
It's TRUE ( to me ) that anchovies should always be a pizza topping.

Some people prefer green olives for that hit of extra salt, instead, but they don't recognize the TRUTH of the noble little fish.

By the way, there are objectively MILLIONS of the noble little fish swimming in the seas. We could, if we wanted to, estimate the number of the fishes in the sea.

Maybe billions, who knows?

I never counted.
But it's an empirical FACT that anchovies exist.
We can go out and fish for them.

Bunch of anchovies in our net?
That's EMPIRICAL evidence for the existence of the little fishes, my friend.

Where's your net.. where is your god?

Just as it is (in my opinion) nonsensical to think AI did not originate with "intelligent Beings", it is at least equally nonsensical to outright reject the (as you call it) "God Hypothesis".

That's faulty reasoning , and I can explain why.
In fact, I did already.

Did you miss that part?
I can do it again, if you like.

In great detail, if you prefer.

When I asked where we originated you stated that you have "no clue".

That's because I'm honest sometimes.
When I don't know something, I don't mind at all admitting it.

I also don't have cure for the common cold, either.
I can't read your mind.

You're a critic of "creation" with no viable answers.

Who says that "creation" is viable?
It's just pretend, right?

I read Genesis as if it were a FAIRY tale.
I have no EVIDENCE that's it's anything else.

It's myth that is PRESENTED as fact.
Most fiction books are presented that way.


Now, if you or anyone else has EMPIRICAL evidence that it's more than just myths, PLEASE hurry up ... the whole WORLD awaits the cure for the common cold and that a an objective being called "God" exists.

You don't believe just anything that you read, right?
So why THIS book?

Any particular reason for that?

You are very entertaining, and your ability to break down the rules of debate, logic, etc. is interesting. But, you still have "no clue".

That's right.
I don't pretend to know what I really don't have a clue about.

Some people would rather PRETEND to have "a clue" instead of simply admitting that they don't really know something. Why is the sky blue? Because of the blue fairies, I suppose. Wait, why don't we say it's God, instead?

It's a pretty good thing that people didn't STOP with God or fairies.. but actually studied the sky... to find out how things work for REAL.

The fairy hypothesis has a lot of charm, though.. right?
A lot simpler to explain to the young children.

Why is the sky blue?
God did it.

Are you REALLY going to explain physics and astronomy to a 4 year old?
Fairy or God did it ... much much simpler.

Then, when the child grows up a little... PHYSICS awaits.

( Turns out.. wasn't the fairies. )

With all this Blasting all over the place, I almost lost track of my original point.

I try to keep things organized a little.
I quote what you write, and then comment below.

Lists are also good.. point form.
Easy to refer to later.

But I agree.. it's hard to keep track of complicated conversations.
One of the good things about writing, is that we can go back and see EXACTLY what we wrote before.

I'm very forgetful, so this venue is great for the likes of me.

I believe the Biblical narrative regarding God and Jesus the Christ.

That's the WHAT you believe.
I'm asking you to defend the proposition that the Biblical narrative regarding God and Jesus the Christ are OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

Because if you believe that the proposition is only SUBJECTIVELY true, then.. well, I get that. I like a good honking metaphor like anyone else.

I get "subjective truth".
I have a LOT of those.

To me, Taoism is the way.
That's true to ME.

Christianity is true to YOU.
To a Hindu, it would be Hinduism.
And so on.

I don't have any problem with SUBJECTIVE TRUTH.

If, on the other hand, you make a claim that your god is OBJECTIVELY TRUE.. then you will need some kind of evidence that would convince the majority of people that it IS. Atheists are a bit of a snag there. We really DO NOT BELIEVE that the God Hypothesis is objectively true.

HENCE, I challenge the proposition.


BUT... I would be the very first in line to support your freedom to choose ANY subjective idea and call it true all you like.

There is a HUGE difference between subjective and objective.

I believe that there is nothing or no one on this earth who can compare to my creator.

Let me show you how I would interpret that comment:

To you, nothing compares to your idea of a creator.

You are telling us WHAT you believe, not your REASONING for the belief.
I've been challenging you to offer us your REASONING, not the laundry list of your beliefs. ENJOY your beliefs.. That's OK.

Profess your beliefs to whoever wants to hear it. That's OK.
You have done a great job of that already.

Is your job done here?

How about that DEFENSE?

We can banter back and forth about structural argument formations and the like, but the bottom line is what is truth.

You are just BANTERING?

"What is truth"?
I thought your bottom line was GOD EXISTS.

Instead of defending your FAITH, you want to discuss the meaning of the word "Truth"?

If you do NOT know the meaning of the word TRUTH, then I challenge the proposition that you can honestly use it in a sentence. I would suggest looking up the standard definitions.. in a dictionary. That's the version that I use.

It seems to me that you were doing just fine using the word before now.

It's a little too common for people to lay down a red herring like "What is truth", instead of defending their faith. What is truth, you ask?

Red herring, I say.
That's stinky fish, and boy oh boy, I know my fish smells.
I won't be so easily distracted by this one.

My alter ego in here is a CAT, not an easily distracted dog.

Defend your faith or don't.
You haven't yet.

You tell us WHAT you believe over and over again.
Not the reasoning that LED you to these beliefs.

Do you have any?

You offer NO defense.
Only a witness to your faith.

Do you HAVE any defense?

I really got the part where you tell us what you believe. I think it was a Christian religion of some sort. Now, if you came in here to DEFEND your belief, your faith, please get on with it.

[BayAreaTodd827]

[Replying to post 144 by Blastcat]

Hey, BlastCat.

If you want to keep corresponding, that's fine. Nevertheless, my previous sentiment stands.

In light of your push to get me to "agree" on certain things, I want share a scriptural passage with you (I don't suspect you'll appreciate and/or understand it, but others might):

Genesis 3:1 (ASV)- "Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any a tree of the garden’?�

The narrative goes on to demonstrate the deceptive aim by the serpent in this exchange.

In addition to this biblical narrative, any lawyer worth their salt knows how to play the "agreement" game. Are you seeking agreement or are you laying a trap? I suspect it is the latter.

"Getting to agreement" can be good (go ahead and add this to your "agreement" tally), but I am taught by my God (via scripture) to beware of such tactics. Remember, you call yourself "cat". They wait, wait..then "pounce" (as you've said).

As I said before, your intention is not to get me to "think", it is to get me to "think like you". Ultimately, however, you want to find a vulnerable spot. Keep trying if you like. In my original post I told you I know the games people play.

I've already expressed my aim. I'm transparent. My efforts are to promote "life" eternal. Your's is to promote what?

You've said nothing to cause me to question God. On the contrary, I trust Him even more.

You see, BlastCat, a cat is subtle and crafty. But, ultimately cats seek those who are weaker than they. They "pounce" on the weak.

As you know, the king of the jungle is the lion. Just a big cat. But lion that has sense will not mess with full grown elephants.

My God has taught me to beware of lions (1 Peter 5:8). However, He has also "equipped" me (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ASV) with His Word which allows me to be a full grown elephant. You neither frighten nor intimidate me with your Blasting. Have it at. I still trust God.

I'm not "closed minded", my friend. But (and as I've said previously), I strive to take full advantage of the knowledge and wisdom God's Word (Scripture) provides. The God I serve is much smarter and wiser than the one(s) you serve.

Again, I said in my original post, I've attended and graduated from more than one post high school institution. Trust me, I know how to "think" (incidentally, no, they were not "religious schools". They were secular). With all my learning, I've arrived at the same conclusion as the writer of Ecclesiastes 12:13 - "Fear God, and keep His commandments".

In God I trust! This is not changing, pal.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 145 by BayAreaTodd827]


[center]

Well, at least I've made a new pal. [/center]

If you want to keep corresponding, that's fine. Nevertheless, my previous sentiment stands.

I LOVE your sentiments.

Luv luv luv
Luv luv luv
Luv luv luv
Luv luv luv
Luv luv luv
Luv luv luv
cant get enough

In light of your push to get me to "agree" on certain things, I want share a scriptural passage with you (I don't suspect you'll appreciate and/or understand it, but others might):

Genesis 3:1 (ASV)- "Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any a tree of the garden’?�

The narrative goes on to demonstrate the deceptive aim by the serpent in this exchange.

Blastcat usually goes GRRRRR or MEOW.. not usually SSSSSS bim boom.
I'm a cat sir, not a snake.

I don't LIKE your metaphor
I got my own.

In addition to this biblical narrative, any lawyer worth their salt knows how to play the "agreement" game. Are you seeking agreement or are you laying a trap? I suspect it is the latter.

Suspect away..
Isn't paranoia fun?

ENJOY your time in here.
Have fun in your debates.

"Getting to agreement" can be good (go ahead and add this to your "agreement" tally), but I am taught by my God (via scripture) to beware of such tactics. Remember, you call yourself "cat". They wait, wait..then "pounce" (as you've said).

So you DON'T agree that agreements are a good thing?
Maybe you like to disagree better.

OK

Disagree away.

As I said before, your intention is not to get me to "think", it is to get me to "think like you".

I love the way that you know my intentions better than I do.
You must be so wise.

Thank you for sharing.. I never KNEW.

Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
I love being told what I think.

Ultimately, however, you want to find a vulnerable spot. Keep trying if you like. In my original post I told you I know the games people play.

You must really really know that I'm just playing games. I can't possibly be serious, right? I love how you know me more than I know myself. Thanks for helping me out with that.

I never ever KNEW.
THANK YOU so ever much.

I've already expressed my aim. I'm transparent. My efforts are to promote "life" eternal. Your's is to promote what?

I promote skepticism and compassion.
I can talk about music all day too.

I also promote sticks. but that's for another day.

You've said nothing to cause me to question God. On the contrary, I trust Him even more.

Im so happy to hear that I caused you to trust him more. An unexpected consequence, but hey.


Congrats for confirming your belief by my challenges.
How cool is THAT ??

You see, BlastCat, a cat is subtle and crafty. But, ultimately cats seek those who are weaker than they. They "pounce" on the weak.

Yep.
I certainly do.

If you present weak arguments, expect pounce all over that.

As you know, the king of the jungle is the lion. Just a big cat. But lion that has sense will not mess with full grown elephants.

Cool.
You are an elephant.

Congrats

My God has taught me to beware of lions (1 Peter 5:8). However, He has also "equipped" me (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ASV) with His Word which allows me to be a full grown elephant. You neither frighten nor intimidate me with your Blasting. Have it at. I still trust God.

If you want to keep corresponding, that's fine. Nevertheless, my previous sentiment stands.

I LOVE your sentiments.

Luv luv luv
Luv luv luv
Luv luv luv
Luv luv luv
Luv luv luv
Luv luv luv
cant get enough

In light of your push to get me to "agree" on certain things, I want share a scriptural passage with you (I don't suspect you'll appreciate and/or understand it, but others might):

Genesis 3:1 (ASV)- "Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any a tree of the garden’?�

The narrative goes on to demonstrate the deceptive aim by the serpent in this exchange.

Blastcat usually goes GRRRRR or MEOW.. not usually SSSSSS bim boom.
I'm a cat sir, not a snake.

I don't LIKE your metaphor
I got my own.

In addition to this biblical narrative, any lawyer worth their salt knows how to play the "agreement" game. Are you seeking agreement or are you laying a trap? I suspect it is the latter.

Suspect away..
Isn't paranoia fun?

ENJOY your time in here.
Have fun in your debates.

"Getting to agreement" can be good (go ahead and add this to your "agreement" tally), but I am taught by my God (via scripture) to beware of such tactics. Remember, you call yourself "cat". They wait, wait..then "pounce" (as you've said).

So you DON'T agree that agreements are a good thing?
Maybe you like to disagree better.

OK

Disagree away.

As I said before, your intention is not to get me to "think", it is to get me to "think like you".

I love the way that you know my intentions better than I do.
You must be so wise.

Thank you for sharing.. I never KNEW.

Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you

Ultimately, however, you want to find a vulnerable spot. Keep trying if you like. In my original post I told you I know the games people play.

You must really really know that I'm just playing games. I can't possibly be serious, right? I love how you know me more than I know myself. Thanks for helping me out with that.

I never ever KNEW.
THANK YOU so ever much.

I've already expressed my aim. I'm transparent. My efforts are to promote "life" eternal. Your's is to promote what?

I promote skepticism and compassion.
I can talk about music all day too.

I also promote sticks. but that's for another day.

You've said nothing to cause me to question God. On the contrary, I trust Him even more.

Im so happy to hear that I caused you to trust him more. An unexpected consequence, but hey.


Congrats for confirming your belief by my challenges.

You see, BlastCat, a cat is subtle and crafty. But, ultimately cats seek those who are weaker than they. They "pounce" on the weak.

Yep.
I certainly do.

If you present weak arguments, expect pounce all over that.

As you know, the king of the jungle is the lion. Just a big cat. But lion that has sense will not mess with full grown elephants.

Cool.
You are an elephant.

Congrats

My God has taught me to beware of lions (1 Peter 5:8). However, He has also "equipped" me (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ASV) with His Word which allows me to be a full grown elephant. You neither frighten nor intimidate me with your Blasting. Have it at. I still trust God.

So, it really doesn't matter at all to you what others think?

I'm not "closed minded", my friend. But (and as I've said previously), I strive to take full advantage of the knowledge and wisdom God's Word (Scripture) provides. The God I serve is much smarter and wiser than the one(s) you serve.

Congrats again.

I don't serve any gods or goddesses.
I am my own man.

Again, I said in my original post, I've attended and graduated from more than one post high school institution.

Congrats.

Trust me, I know how to "think" (incidentally, no, they were not "religious schools". They were secular). With all my learning, I've arrived at the same conclusion as the writer of Ecclesiastes 12:13 - "Fear God, and keep His commandments".

Congrats from the catz.

In God I trust! This is not changing, pal.

I haz pal.

Congrats for not being able to change.



So, why debate?

[BayAreaTodd827]

[Replying to post 146 by Blastcat]

Hello, BlastCat, you've asked two questions in your last post:

Do I care what others think? The answer is, it depends. A person is typically driven to act based on what they "think". I want people to think about the big picture which extends beyond this life. Jesus often asked what others thought. In one example, a disciple of his tried to "defend" him by physically attacking another who was attempting to arrest Jesus. Jesus corrected that person's thoughts by explaining there was a bigger purpose (see Matthew 26:51-54). So, what another "thinks" in such a situation (of course there are others) is important.

However (and as I'm certain you know), peer pressure often comes from being too concerned with what other people "think". If a person is dismissive of my core values I will not change those values based on what others "think".

The other question you asked is, "why debate"?

I think exchanging points of view, respectfully, can be helpful to others. As I've said repeatedly, ultimately people must make their own decisions. My hope is that people choose God through Jesus Christ. Maybe in debating this might be accomplished. 1 Corinthians 9:22 KJV applies, which says "To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men , that I might by all means save some."

Reasonable?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 147 by BayAreaTodd827]



[center]
More challenges, a few agreements.[/center]

Do I care what others think? The answer is, it depends.

I suppose it's a LOT easier to care about what the other people think if they AGREE, right?

That's why I seek agreements.
I have to ask you again.. just so that we are perfectly clear on this:

DO YOU AGREE that it's best to seek for agreements with all kinds of people?

Please respond.

A person is typically driven to act based on what they "think".

Agreement number 13.

I want people to think about the big picture which extends beyond this life.

Beyond what I can know?
How can I possibly THINK about what I have NO evidence for even EXISTS?

You ask for the impossible.

You are hereby challenged to defend the proposition that you know something about what is beyond this life.

Which will make it challenge number 20.

However (and as I'm certain you know), peer pressure often comes from being too concerned with what other people "think".

I challenge you to defend the proposition that religion doesn't use pressure tactics in order to garner more believers ... Challenge number 21.

If a person is dismissive of my core values I will not change those values based on what others "think".

Dismissive?
Do you think that spending hours trying to figure out what you believe is being DISMISSIVE?

I challenge the proposition that I am being in any way DISMISSIVE of your "Core values".

That's a 22nd challenge.

The other question you asked is, "why debate"?

If you can't possibly change your mind.. yah.
What's the point?

It's maybe a "selfless act", but you sure aren't here to LEARN anything.
You seem to want to be a preacher.

Get in line. Take a number.. we will get to you shortly.
Lectures are NOT debates, my friend.

I think exchanging points of view, respectfully, can be helpful to others.

Do you think that only OTHER people should have an open mind?



I challenge you to defend the proposition that if your mind is CLOSED that you can learn anything new at all.

Challenge number 23.

As I've said repeatedly, ultimately people must make their own decisions.

Agreement 14.

My hope is that people choose God through Jesus Christ. Maybe in debating this might be accomplished.

Oh wait.

Do you mean to say that OTHERS should change their mind, but not YOU?

1 Corinthians 9:22 KJV applies, which says "To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men , that I might by all means save some."

Reasonable?

Only if you think that calling me WEAK is defending your faith.
Ad hominem sounds reasonable to you?


I challenge you to defend the proposition that calling someone "weak" helps to convince them that they ARE.

Challenge number 24.