Welcome Guest!
Scientism
- Thread starter ambush80
- Start date
atlashunter
Senior Member
The problem with this analysis is the assumption on your part that science could not accommodate exceptions to the laws of nature being made. The problem for those who claim supernatural suspensions of the laws of nature is not that science cannot test such claims. The problem is that no such claim has ever met the bar of being verifiably true.
j_seph
Senior Member
See folks still think you can take a working watch apart, put all the pieces in a bag, shake those parts around for a million years then open that bag and have a complete watch that is on time.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Like who?and with examples please.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
What is said of people who take a working watch of unknown origin and inscribe a bogus manufacturer name on it?
atlashunter
Senior Member
j_seph
Senior Member
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
J, if that is your proof, we cannot help you
WaltL1
Senior Member
I'm curious how in your mind that proves it was the Christian God that was responsible and disproves all the other creation stories about different gods?
Israel
BANNED
How can I not love you for that?
Lacking evidence in whatever measure then, leaves a man...what? What is the word for one who is not yet (or yet made) completely honest?
Listen...this fellow with whom you have some issue in regards to motive, (would you call it...honesty?) of whom you have said merely went about in contradiction to the truth of Jesus Christ (as you see Him) to start his own or "new" religion, are you able to hear what is being said here?
I care very little, however, if I am judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not vindicate me. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
Having no evidence in conscience against ones self (at least as this man states that is the place he occupies) is not being assumed to vindication, or as said in another translation...to innocence. Just because a man may sense no evidence in conscience against himself...is not the "all".
If I were to say it matters little I think I would be greatly in error. A clear conscience is not up for easy dismissal. It could even be, if I have any understanding of this matter at all, that a clear conscience is most necessary to bring one to the very place of understanding that it precisely, though valuable, is not the all.
A naive or uninformed person may find this a subtle thing, just as one might mistakenly say "my brother was accused of murder, but the court found him innocent". No, it did not. It found him "not guilty". The one who persists in saying "huh? big deal, same thing" remains outside yet being able to consider that difference (which truly is not subtle). For the court never confuses nor renders ever...a judgment to innocence. It reckons only upon what evidence it has, and recognizes only to that limit as being (in hope?) able to determine whether enough is found to determine for guilt, or not. (I say "in hope?", because that is the best one can "hope for" that the legal system might truly be dedicated to no other motive.)
If I say further it is the naive who simply assume this, as in "our system of justice is always impartial" I brush up against a cynicism that I would prefer (but, do I really?) not to encourage. Just believing such a thing as justice exists, as with innocence, as with (what might be described as pure) honesty, is never any indication to its right (!) exercise. I believe in justice! I believe in honesty! I believe man "should be" innocent (not criminal!). Right is also a very final word, for there is a word for something that is "almost right". Wrong. Ask the math teacher.
Yes, we do say "Jesus is right". Just as a man might say "I believe in justice". But the man who naively believes just saying he believes in justice is full expression of himself as being "all for it, always"...may be just that...naive (at best) or criminal (at worst) when other things come to light. Like how he does "his taxes". Like...how he forgives his brother.
But Paul is not saying, and in fact is saying, "I am not naive enough (or no longer naive enough) to believe that having a clear conscience testifies to me I am innocent". And likewise, not naive enough to believe a judgment of "not guilty" is the same as "innocent". But...(O! might this be seen!)..."not guilty" is great! I dare not despise it! In truth...this being "let off the hook" (if one has truly faced that Judge, with those charges of such all consuming gravity!) is too marvelous! "I'll take "not guilty!".
Lots and lots of folks took their swing at Paul, still do. Some no doubt find this most odious of all, "He claims to know God as his only judge". He claims to "know God"...in whatever measure...that causes him to not submit to man's judgments of him. "Look, he says he is even free of "having to" judge himself!." It's so easily mistaken as mark of pride. (As if that man is unaware how much he himself is tempted to it) But...where once "not guilty" was so rightly celebrated (God forbid any man despise it!)...he now sees "innocence" as clearest prize made in form to him apprehend able, discover able, see able...in Jesus Christ, alone. How to get from seeing to "having", knowing, in "right exercise" of, and with...aware now that just "saying" has provided entrance to a seeing of a thing so far beyond his own imaginations as to what "innocence" is, compels him to pursue it. Yes, being "let off the hook" is great...but HE, is all! Of such pure innocence as being able to move the needle of "all guilty" to not guilty. To have within the power to remove the stain of "not having all the evidence" that leaves a man "less than honest" (what is that word for such?)
"Forgive them Father they know not what they do"
They lack the evidence, the knowing, that I have in such sufficiency of you as to make this appeal with confidence. Do not hold "not knowing" against them.
You are right, the burden "of proof" remains with me if I make any declaration of either knowing God, or that He may be known. Is man guilty for not knowing...or forgiven? Forgiven implies a recognition of guilt for which something is supplied (by a someone to another) to relieve. But...in Christ it includes open invitation to now know "the innocent" One one whose behalf it has been supplied.
You are right, I have not made Him clearly enough known.
I am guilty in all ways before you. The one claiming the "knowing" has only one source of appeal. To the One who forgives the claiming to know, for not knowing.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Suspect
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Even though you admit that I am right you cannot help but skip any sort of any attempt to try to insert a shred of evidence to back up your next set up assertive statement. Which is...
You, or anyone has yet to make him, let alone known. I find it telling that the son of a god is unknowable and hides waiting on his followers to try to legitimize him.
It all seems so....unbelievable...
660griz
Senior Member
If you think that is crazy, you should hear some of the stuff religious folks think.
Ascend to heaven on a winged horse. Water into wine. World wide flood. Don't eat shrimp or pork. Genital mutilation. Chop up the dead and feed to vultures. Baby tossing. Poisonous snake handling. A talking donkey scolded a prophet. Brown skin is a punishment for disobeying God. Sacred underwear protects believers from spiritual contamination and, according to some adherents, from fire and speeding bullets. When certain rites are performed beforehand, bread turns into human flesh after it is swallowed. And on and on.
j_seph
Senior Member
For that watch to go through that kind of chaos, then to be put together and working and be on time would take someone to have put it back together. For this world, this planet, and everything on it someone (being God) would have had to of done it. Chaos cannot fix itself, Chaos will continue on into more Chaos until someone stops it by putting everything where it needs to be to work in a proper order.
WaltL1
Senior Member
You don't see the gigantic flaw in your argument do you?
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
You are relying on another Hallmark Card moment of an event that never happened from an entity that does not exist.
Put a pieced out watch in a ziploc, shake it up and pray to your god for it to be pieced together.
We will wait...
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
You live in chaos by the minute. If you did not notice people are dying constantly by many different means. Events within the Earth causes major destruction. Events in the atmosphere cause major destruction. The Sun, "our" lifeblood is burning out. Asteroids will cease the existence of you and your "made for us" planet in the blink of an eye.
You are delusional on where you live and your surroundings.
WaltL1
Senior Member
J_seph do you believe thats what God did?
Took something that already existed, like a watch, scrambled it up and made it a watch again?
If thats not what you believe then your example doesnt even fit what you believe never mind what anybody else believes.
j_seph
Senior Member
No that is not what I believe, but seems several of y'all seem to think that it all took place without GOD, that this came to be because of that then that became to be because of this. That there was a big explosion and that is how things came to be. It just could not have Just came to be without the Lords hands doing so.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Yes, that is EXACTLY what we think. Nobody has ever proven that any sort of god exists let alone the god you worship created anything. You insert "god did it" to fill in what you do not know and cannot understand.
