Christianity

[Belinda]

Amen.

The hymn in Hymns Ancient and Modern the first line of which is "The spacious firmament on high" by Addison, is one of my favourites. Because it expresses awe despite that its science is well outdated.

The spacious firmament on high,
With all the blue ethereal sky,
And spangled heavens, a shining frame,
Their great Original proclaim.
The unwearied sun from day to day
Does his Creator's power display,
And publishes to every land
The work of an almighty hand.
Soon as the evening shades prevail
The moon takes up the wondrous tale,
And nightly to the listening earth
Repeats the story of her birth;
Whilst all the stars that round her burn,
And all the planets in their turn,
Confirm the tidings, as they roll,
And spread the truth from pole to pole.
What though in solemn silence all
Move round the dark terrestrial ball;
What though nor real voice nor sound
Amid their radiant orbs be found;
In reason's ear they all rejoice,
And utter forth a glorious voice,
For ever singing as they shine,
'The hand that made us is divine.'
Source: Musixmatch

Timelessly beautiful. Not outdated at all.

I am so glad you appreciate it. It gives me gooseflesh every time I read it.

[iambiguous]

I'm not "making" it anything. It was exactly as I said it was.

Pick three:
1] absolutely shameless

Number 1 will suffice. There is no reason for shame here. The truth is its own justification.

Note to those here who are said to be Hell bound if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior:

Immanuel Can claims that beyond leaps of faith, wagers and Scripture, WLC and the RF folks have been able to accumulate substantial scientific and historical evidence to demonstrate that the Christian God does in fact exist.

So, if this is of any interest to you, see if IC might be willing to examine that evidence with you.

Again, I can't even get him to note the video segments that were most impactful given his own assessment here and now.

[Immanuel Can]

Pick three:
1] absolutely shameless

Number 1 will suffice. There is no reason for shame here. The truth is its own justification.

Again, I can't even get him to note the video segments that were most impactful given his own assessment here and now.

And I can't get you to watch them for yourself, and make up your own mind. So that's a wash.

[iambiguous]

Number 1 will suffice. There is no reason for shame here. The truth is its own justification.

Here, alas, I'm inclined to suspect a "condition":

And I can't get you to watch them for yourself, and make up your own mind. So that's a wash.

Here I'm inclined to suspect a "condition". For the third or fourth time now, he has made this claim regarding my refusal to even watch the videos...

IC

So if you want to know, I can only recommend that you do what Biggie apparently wasn't able to do (or wasn't able to understand, if he did bother even to look); just take a peek for yourself. The site's got short videos, and they're very entertaining to watch, and short. But they give a person a good idea of how the arguments for God go.

ME

This is just confusing. Is he actually saying that I did not create the thread above -- viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- in order to explore the evidence? Or is he talking about some other evidence.

In any event, in sustaining his comfort and consolation both here and now and there and then, there's a catch-22. You either did not watch the videos or you did but simply did not understand them. And, of course, understanding them means agreeing with them.

Or else: The Horror! The horror! of spending all the rest of eternity in one or another rendition of this: https://www.google.com/search?q=images+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

[Immanuel Can]

Here, alas, I'm inclined to suspect a "condition":

And I can't get you to watch them for yourself, and make up your own mind. So that's a wash.

Here I'm inclined to suspect a "condition".

There aren't any. I don't find you interesting for a conversation. I can't imagine any conditions under which I'd bother.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I'll take the words of Jesus and run with them thanks,

Matthew 24:23-29

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, [and false theologians, and false apologists,] and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not[: behold, he is in the video; watch it not]. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

And I'll occupy till He comes.

[iambiguous]

Then this part...

"When a Mexican navy tall ship crashed into the Brooklyn Bridge, it was maneuvering in turbulent waters. The tide had just turned, and a fast current was heading up the East River as a 10 mph wind set in."

In other words, was this an "act of God", as well? Two Mexican sailors died and 19 were injured.

Did God Himself set all of this in motion...or do things like this unfold solely because of the manner in which God created planet Earth? Either way though these small "acts of God" are all God's doing.

Then the part where God either created the laws of matter resulting in natural [big and small] disasters here on Earth or God Himself came into existence after the laws of matter were "somehow" already around?

Or back to Harold Kushner?

[iambiguous]

There aren't any [conditions]. I don't find you interesting for a conversation. I can't imagine any conditions under which I'd bother.

Over and again: forget about me here. Start a thread in which you discuss this evidence with others. I won't post on this thread, I'll just follow the discussion.

And just for the record, not only are you aware of this thread...

viewtopic.php?t=40750

...you actually posted there yourself:

Below is a collection of 17 YouTube videos that Immanual Can claimed were able to convince him that the Christian God does in fact exist.

Correction: the subject of our debate was not whether or not God exists, but whether good evidence of an independent or scientific nature exists for that hypothesis.

You now know the answer: yes.

That you refuse the evidence, that you don't like the evidence, that you complain about the evidence, that you deny the implications of the evidence...are all irrelevant to the point. The evidence exists, that there "are empirical facts that are available."

Here's the clip from the conversation that caused me to send you the videos. The words are your own:

Come on, IC, in order to speak of Christianity in terms of morality, one must first be convinced that the Christian God does in fact exist. You claim there are empirical facts. But when I ask you to provide them on par with a ton of empirical facts available to confirm the existence of the Pope, you have nothing tangible to offer.

Or do you? Let's hear it.

Nobody can force you to accept it. But that it exists, you now do have to accept. You've seen quite a bit of it. And like I said, you've decided not to listen to any of the evidence.

Point made.

But that was basically it. You either read my reaction to the videos or you didn't.

So, now the point seems to be that only those who watch the videos and accept that WLC and RF nailed it [if not to a cross] have really watched them.

Of course, those of my ilk have been getting this argument over and over again from the God World folks. In other words, if I really wanted to be born again, I'd "somehow" make myself believe the evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

There aren't any [conditions]. I don't find you interesting for a conversation. I can't imagine any conditions under which I'd bother.

...forget about me here.

Already done.

[iambiguous]

There aren't any [conditions]. I don't find you interesting for a conversation. I can't imagine any conditions under which I'd bother.

...forget about me here.

Already done.

How about this part:

"Start a thread in which you discuss this evidence with others. I won't post on this thread, I'll just follow the discussion."

At the very least you should be able to provide us with some sort of explanation as to why, on the one hand, you claim there is substantial evidence to establish the existence of the Christian God and why, on the other hand, you don't bring this up with others who could be saved.

Or maybe it takes me back to the days when as a devout Christian myself, my own commitment to Christ prompted me to proselytize whenever I got the chance. Admittedly, I drove some family and friends up the wall, but Reverend Deardorf was quite clear about saving souls. As Christians, nothing was more important given what is at stake on both sides of the grave. I may well have continued doing so to this day. Only I got drafted and while in Vietnam my sense of reality was reconfigured instead into Marxism/atheism.

And, in that sense, I have to ask: "are you a True Christian?"

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Then this part...

"When a Mexican navy tall ship crashed into the Brooklyn Bridge, it was maneuvering in turbulent waters. The tide had just turned, and a fast current was heading up the East River as a 10 mph wind set in."

In other words, was this an "act of God", as well? Two Mexican sailors died and 19 were injured.

Did God Himself set all of this in motion...or do things like this unfold solely because of the manner in which God created planet Earth? Either way though these small "acts of God" are all God's doing.

Then the part where God either created the laws of matter resulting in natural [big and small] disasters here on Earth or God Himself came into existence after the laws of matter were "somehow" already around?

Or back to Harold Kushner?

God has no choice in the laws of matter, but to instantiate them. And He has no choice in that either. He's always done it as the ground of being. There was never a point when He chose or rather He always chooses, the same; for there can be nothing new, better, different, from eternity, Like He always begat His superfluous Son; all you need is the Father and the Holy Spirit after all. Or it all gets absurdly silly in a hypostasis one way and another, especially a particular one. Not denying the divinity of Jesus mind. Just ask. In fact, all you need is Love.

[Belinda]

Then this part...

"When a Mexican navy tall ship crashed into the Brooklyn Bridge, it was maneuvering in turbulent waters. The tide had just turned, and a fast current was heading up the East River as a 10 mph wind set in."

In other words, was this an "act of God", as well? Two Mexican sailors died and 19 were injured.

Did God Himself set all of this in motion...or do things like this unfold solely because of the manner in which God created planet Earth? Either way though these small "acts of God" are all God's doing.

Then the part where God either created the laws of matter resulting in natural [big and small] disasters here on Earth or God Himself came into existence after the laws of matter were "somehow" already around?

Or back to Harold Kushner?

It depends on whether or not you believe God is the author of each and every event If He is the author of each and every event then the Brooklyn Bridge disaster was God's making.
On the other hand if you believe God is the unique definitive event among all relative events then He is not does not pertain to natural disasters but is defined by such as the event we call Jesus.(or the Koran).

The problem of evil resides in the impossibility of aligning the authoritative with the definitive, except when some amazing genius happens. Take an event from the performing arts for instance: If Shakespeare performed the part of Rosalind then the performance be authoritative but it would not necessarily be definitive. When however a superb actor (m or f) performs Shakespeare's creation Rosalind then the performance may be hailed as the definitive Rosalind.

Trinitarian Christianity combines authority with definition in the person of Jesus. That is,if one has faith that Jesus Christ can and does conquer death. I wish I had faith, but I don't. I don't have faith therefore I read the Brooklyn Bridge disaster as unmitigated disaster and evil.

God, I would believe so help thou mine unbelief.

[Immanuel Can]

...forget about me here.

Already done.

Or maybe it takes me back to the days when as a devout Christian myself, my own commitment to Christ prompted me to proselytize whenever I got the chance. Admittedly, I drove some family and friends up the wall…

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.” (C.S. Lewis)

You get to choose the disposition of your own soul. Not even God Himself will deprive you of that right. Make your choice.

[Belinda]

Already done.

Or maybe it takes me back to the days when as a devout Christian myself, my own commitment to Christ prompted me to proselytize whenever I got the chance. Admittedly, I drove some family and friends up the wall…

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.” (C.S. Lewis)

You get to choose the disposition of your own soul. Not even God Himself will deprive you of that right. Make your choice.

C S Lewis claims he is not a seeker like anyone who has a shred of humility. In other words, it's best to be a waverer unless you are JC himself.

[Immanuel Can]

C S Lewis claims he is not a seeker like anyone who has a shred of humility.

Please quote your source for that claim. You forgot to provide it.

It doesn't even really matter, though, because your argument is pure ad hominem. The question is not whether or not you like C.S. -- it's whether or not his claim is true.