- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 10/6/22 at 4:02 pm to roadGator
quote:
Whitefish
Make sure to hit Flathead, too.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 4:15 pm to L.A.
quote:
So why is abortion so important to the Left?
To quote Margaret Sanger it's to facilitate "the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”
Posted on 10/6/22 at 5:16 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I made the move out west for a dryer climate.
Traded white tail for mulies and elk. Still go to the city for Jazzfest every year and big chief it with family and friends.
Traded white tail for mulies and elk. Still go to the city for Jazzfest every year and big chief it with family and friends.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 6:32 pm to TGFN57
I've been to every state in the country, and a few dozen different countries. No one will convince me that there's a better place on this planet to live.
For now...
For now...
Posted on 10/6/22 at 6:35 pm to L.A.
quote:
Why is abortion so important to the Left?
Moloch. Look it up. The truth is something few believe. It is all about souls. They work for Satan and Satan wants more souls and suffering.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 6:36 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:It is correct, since, as I said, axioms are foundational.
This isn't correct.
You claim that what your god wrote is correct, and your proof is that god wrote it. That isn't useful information and it does nothing to add veracity to your claim
My axiom of God writing the Bible is useful for many reasons. For one, it's useful is being able to trust that what is written is true and for our good. For another, it's useful in the interpretation of reality by forming a Christian worldview. There are many more, but my point is that it's useful, you just don't see it as such because you don't believe it to be true. That doesn't change the usefulness of axioms.
quote:I believe all non-Christian worldviews are ultimately irrational and not supportable as they don't comport to reality and cannot be adhered to consistently. I believe your worldview is irrational for this reason and I have attempted to show how you cannot be consistent while holding to it.
I'm not simply defending "my worldview" as you're always determined to do. It doesn't cause me offense for others not to believe as I believe because I don't make the claim that I have a god who supports "my worldview."
quote:No. If your worldview is correct, then there is no ultimate authority that anyone is accountable to and there is no objective moral standard to adhere to. There is no ultimate law, nor an ultimate law-giver. We don't have to do anything we don't want to do.
No it doesn't. It just removes any obligation to act in a way that's consistent with your flavor of god. Which is exactly what we have in the real world.
It doesn't matter what we do or believe because there is no ultimate purpose or guide/law that we are obligated to adhere to. All there is is a bunch of one-off opinions that each person makes for himself, and the occasional arbitrary opinion that makes it way into a localized law that may or may not be changed over time, that society arbitrarily wants others to adhere to because their opinion is that it's better than other arbitrary opinions.
quote:My belief is in the objective law-giver. That objective law-giver is the one that requires all people to adhere to the objective law that He has given. My beliefs, themselves, don't require anyone to believe or do anything. It's the object of my belief (God) that requires all people to believe and do certain things.
Sure, but how they should act is only based on your beliefs. Wishing something to be so doesn't make it so. Most people on this planet don't think we should act the way you think we should act.
Inconsistency.
But back to my point: reason is pretty much universally accepted as a good and necessary thing, and almost everyone attempts to be reasonable; few actually want to be perceived as "crazy" and irrational, discarding logic and reason for arbitrariness. We expect logical consistency with our actions and our words, and we expect them from others, yet in a worldview that rejects God, there is no foundational basis for logic, and there is no way for people to be logically consistent. Your naturalistic, materialistic worldview cannot account for an objective moral standard, yet you, yourself, expect others to adhere to one.
If all the world were forced to live under a government that made theft, rape, and murder tolerable (perhaps "The Purge" is a good reference point), I doubt you would be fine with that, but would think such things are both morally wrong for you and for others, and you'd expect some movement to arise to force a change to the government or laws to align with that moral expectation. Such a thing would be inconsistent without a materialistic worldview, though, because there would be no rational reason why theft, rape, and murder would be "bad". Unpleasant to experience, perhaps, but not "wrong".
quote:His uniqueness comes from His necessary existence and the inexistence of any others, claimed or otherwise.
Sure, him and the thousands of others who supposedly made the same claims.
quote:They do not establish morality. Morality is an internal knowledge or feeling of what is right and wrong behavior. Society doesn't establish what is internalized. They only externalize what already exists in the hearts and minds of some within that society. Theft, murder, and rape are morally wrong. That's an accepted truth. Yet, if society creates or establishes morality, then conceptually a society could make theft, rape, and murder legally acceptable, which would make such behaviors "moral".
They establish it.
quote:Your worldview (not reality) doesn't make condemnation meaningful. Condemnation is nothing more than personal opinion in your worldview. So what? If you prefer blue to green, or yogurt to muffins, that doesn't mean anything to anyone but you. Yet, you don't believe that to be true when it comes to morality. When you condemn others, you don't treat their actions like you do favorite colors. You believe moral actions are meaningful, both to yourself and to society as a whole. You hold others to a standard with morality that you don't when it comes to favorite food. Yet, your worldview has to treat both sorts of thing as the same, because it reduces morality to mere personal preference. You don't act that way, though. You do condemn others for their moral failings (as you see them), precisely because you treat morality as something other than your own personal preference. You are inconsistent in this way.
"My worldview"(reality) doesn't prevent condemnation. It simply says that you aren't objectively correct in your condemnation
quote:I just explained how it does preclude meaning. Meaning is entirely subjective in your worldview, out of necessity, because meaning is something that only exists within the brain.
No, it doesn't. "It" only precludes existence of objective morality.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 6:38 pm to L.A.
quote:That's simply false. The Trinity has been believed and defined from the beginning. I'm sorry that you've lacked faith in the God of the Bible for so long, but it's clear that the Lord has closed your eyes and ears to the truth. I'll pray that He opens them through the gospel of Jesus Christ, for there is no salvation apart from Him, as He is God.
I've spent the last 50 years studying it. There is no full defense of the Trinity, at least not in a rational, honest way
Posted on 10/6/22 at 6:45 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It is correct, since, as I said, axioms are foundational.
Keep saying it. You'll continue to be wrong.
You can make whatever claims you want about what your belief means. Here, it's meaningless.
quote:
I believe all non-Christian worldviews are ultimately irrational and not supportable as they don't comport to reality and cannot be adhered to consistently.
Believe.
You can believe whatever you want to believe. That carries absolutely no weight in this discussion. I don't care what you believe, and your beliefs are evidence of exactly nothing.
quote:
there is no objective moral standard to adhere to
Correct. I just go a step further in pointing out that your wishful thinking (what you're calling a worldview) doesn't establish an objective moral standard, either. It establishes a subjective moral standard that you choose to adhere to because of what you believe. Nothing more.
quote:
My belief is in the objective law-giver.
That doesn't make it objective. It only means that you recognize a supernatural authority without what I consider to be an acceptable amount of evidence.
You do you, but it doesn't apply to everyone.
quote:
His uniqueness comes from His necessary existence and the inexistence of any others, claimed or otherwise.
Yeah, so you say. Your evidence for your flavor isn't more compelling than any of the others.
quote:
They do not establish morality.
They do. Much of it predates your god, too.
quote:
Your worldview (not reality) doesn't make condemnation meaningful.
It sure doesn't.
Neither does yours. You hollering at people from street corners that they're going to hell is amusing, but that's about it.
quote:
I just explained how it does preclude meaning.
Sure. You were wrong.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 6:52 pm to FooManChoo
quote:No it hasn't. The church believed in Modalism, for example, before it believed in the Trinity. The trinity was accepted at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, then fine-tuned for another 350 years. And no one today, you included, can explain it or even understand it.
That's simply false. The Trinity has been believed and defined from the beginning
Are we really to believe that God is such a poor communicator?
quote:
but it's clear that the Lord has closed your eyes and ears to the truth.
Spoken like the narrow minded, pompous person that you are
This post was edited on 10/6/22 at 7:56 pm
Posted on 10/6/22 at 6:58 pm to L.A.
quote:
Spoken like the narrow minded, pompous person that you are
Posted on 10/7/22 at 8:57 am to AtlantaLSUfan
quote:
Just seeing your epic reply and had to post. Cheers to you good sir and LOL at that ridiculous story.
Thank you for those kind words. You just can’t make this stuff up. We live in strange times my friend, strange times indeed.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 9:07 am to oklahogjr
quote:
My biggest issue is police brutality
Given your extremist views, I doubt your idea of what constitutes police brutality is really police brutality.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 9:10 am to L.A.
quote:
So why is abortion so important to the Left?
The number one reason?
To control the African-American population. They might not share Margret Sanger's vision of trying to eradicate the entire race via abortion and sterilization, but they do champion the idea that the #1 abortion victim is the African American.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 9:31 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
DisplacedBuckeye
Ironic, as you speak the same way Foo does.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 11:35 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:We're going in circles now.
DisplacedBuckeye
My worldview provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility with a God that upholds the universe and provides a basis for logic, objective morality, science (uniformitarianism), and other things necessary for us to make sense of the world that do not exist in other worldviews, either out of necessity (they don't provide such things) or they are internally inconsistent and cannot be trusted to be true.
Naturalistic materialism (what most atheists subscribe to) cannot provide a rational basis for the world we live in, and it leads to a lot of inconsistent people who pretend they live in a world that provides those things that God provides, but their own worldviews reject.
You are in darkness and I pray that the Lord opens your eyes to the light of His Word, and the only means to be justified before a holy God, faith in the Son, Jesus Christ. Without it, you will suffer for eternity for your rebellion against your creator. There will be no pardon for you when you've left this life without faith in Christ. I don't want that for you. I want you to have eternal life.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 11:54 am to L.A.
Abortions allows complete lack of personal responsibility for your actions.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 12:10 pm to L.A.
quote:Not The Church. Heretics and those they mislead maybe.
The church believed in Modalism, for example, before it believed in the Trinity.
It was condemned in 213 and declared heresy circa 262 by the bishop of Rome-predating Nicaea a bit.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 12:23 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:Modalism was the view until it wasn't. It was eventually declared to be a heresy. All of which shows the serious challenge the church had in trying to understand and explain the nature of Jesus.
Not The Church. Heretics and those they mislead maybe.
quote:Yes, by the time of Nicaea Modalism was decades in the past and the Arian Controversy (Arius vs Athanasius) took center stage. At the heart of the controversy was the divinity of Christ. Athanasius won and the council confirmed the divinity of Christ in AD 325. The church would debate for another 350 years what exactly that meant
It was condemned in 213 and declared heresy circa 262 by the bishop of Rome-predating Nicaea a bit.
All of which is to point out that those of us alive today assume that what we believe has always been believed by all Christians. The reality is that it took a centuries-long process to arrive at orthodox doctrine
Posted on 10/7/22 at 12:49 pm to L.A.
quote:I changed my mind. I do want to engage on this heresy, at least for a little bit.
No it hasn't. The church believed in Modalism, for example, before it believed in the Trinity. The trinity was accepted at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, then fine-tuned for another 350 years. And no one today, you included, can explain it or even understand it.
Are we really to believe that God is such a poor communicator?
The Church did not believe in Modalism. Modalism was one form of heresy that popped up in the early church along with others like Arianism, Docetism, and Tritheism. The Trinity was believed in a simplistic view from the early Church. Jesus taught it. The Apostles taught it. Those who followed the Apostles taught it. The Old Roman Creed (which is nearly identical to the Apostles' Creed) was an early church creed from the 1st or 2nd century, and it is Trinitarian in its form (Father, Son, and Spirit).
Irenaeus defended (not created) the Trinity in the 2nd century, and Tertullian coined the term "Trinity" about 100 years before Nicea. Also, Nicea didn't create the doctrine, but established it as a core, biblical doctrine. They put their stamp of approval on it in light of the heresies that were circulating at the time. They didn't create the doctrine.
The Trinity can be explained and it has for nearly 2,000 years. The only problem is that it's hard for us to conceptualize because it is entirely unique in all of creation. That said, it isn't a contradiction to say God is one in substance but three in persons. The 'what' is one and the 'who' is three.
And yes, it is biblical. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, yet the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father. These aren't contradictory statements but pulled from the Bible, itself, through necessary inference.
John 1:1-2 says that in the beginning, the Word was with God and the Word was God ("with" means apart from God, while "was" indicates a unity of substance with God). This Word became flesh and dwelt among us as the Son of God, Jesus Christ. In this one passage, we see that Jesus is God yet is differentiated from the Father. Jesus, Himself, used the same "I Am" language of the Father (John 8:58) with reference to Himself. He even received worship even though He said that only God should be worshiped (Luke 4:8; Matthew 14:33).
Likewise, the Spirit was with God from the beginning (Genesis 1:2), and the Spirit is equated with God in Acts 5. He proceeds from the Father (John 15:26-27) and is sent by the Son (John 16:7-15).
These three are all God, yet they are all different from each other. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and sent from the Son (He is not the Father, nor the Son). The Son was with the Father from eternity past and was sent by the Father to be a man to save a people for Himself.
Trinitarian language is all throughout the Bible, but especially in the New Tesatament, where Jesus revealed to the people more information about God. Paul uses such language in Rom. 1:4; 15:30; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 1:13-14; and 1 Thess. 1:3-6.
The Trinity was present in creation (God the Father, the Word/Jesus that created, and the Spirit that was over the waters). The pre-incarnate Jesus was witnessed by Abraham, who rejoiced to see His day (John 8:56), and when that claim was questioned by the Pharisees on that point for being too young, Jesus used the "I am" of God to show His eternality. The Spirit is all throughout the OT, as well.
I could go on, but my point is this: the Bible teaches Trinitarianism even if it doesn't use the word "Trinity" as we do to describe that doctrine. The early Church believed it in a primitive form and the concept was fleshed out and clarified over the first few hundred years in response to heresies that denied the Trinity. If you reject the Trinity, you reject God, and therefore you are still under the guilt of the law and in need of salvation by the God-man, Jesus Christ. Repent and believe in Him.
Page 15 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News