• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Shroud of Turin is from first AD.

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No, please, do not care. They are unwilling to repent.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Matthew 7:6
But that is not true. Quite a few atheists are willing to repent and make amends when they do wrong. They simply skip the middle man. There is no need to repent to a made up God. They cut out the middleman and make amends with the person that they wronged. That is much better than saying that one is sorry to one's god and not fix the wrong that one did.
 
Care to explain and then evidence your assumption that people who don't share your beliefs are being "influenced" by demons? As I said, it seems a pretty obvious no true Scotsman fallacy to me. At best its post ad hoc rationalisation, that is as yet unsupported by any objective evidence, not that this is too much of a surprise of course.
My view comes Ephesians 2 and you can take it or leave it, same as I view your comments. But I found Ephesians 2 to explain very well
 
Last edited:

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Care to explain and then evidence your assumption that people who don't share your beliefs are being "influenced" by demons? As I said, it seems a pretty obvious no true Scotsman fallacy to me. At best its post ad hoc rationalisation, that is as yet unsupported by any objective evidence, not that this is too much of a surprise of course.
No, please, do not care. They are unwilling to repent.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Matthew 7:6

None of your business what others post here, and not defending the claim is pretty much what I'd anticipate anyway, since I have every reason to suspect the claim is a groundless subjective belief, used as handwaving to dismiss arguments he cannot properly address.

You're also coming close to proselytising again. This is a debate forum, not a church revival tent.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
My view comes Ephesians 2 and you can take it or leave same as I view your comments. But I found Ephesians 2 to explain very well
How so, I am not doing the legwork for you, it's your ludicrous claim, you are obliged to explain it and not doing do means it goes in the bin with all the other subjective rhetoric you randomly offer from the bible? Also you have neglected to demonstrate any objective evidence, again I shan't even feign surprise.
 
But that is not true. Quite a few atheists are willing to repent and make amends when they do wrong. They simply skip the middle man. There is no need to repent to a made up God. They cut out the middleman and make amends with the person that they wronged. That is much better than saying that one is sorry to one's god and not fix the wrong that one did.
Shows me they have a conscience, that’s a good thing and the way I view this is more evidence of God.
 
How so, I am not doing the legwork for you, it's your ludicrous claim, you are obliged to explain it and not doing do means it goes in the bin with all the other subjective rhetoric you randomly offer from the bible? Also you have neglected to demonstrate any objective evidence, again I shan't even feign surprise.
I’m not obligated to explain when the text is clear, what is it about Ephesians 2 that you don’t understand?
Will this go on for a week or 2 or just come out with what you don’t understand.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Shows me they have a conscience, that’s a good thing and the way I view this is more evidence of God.

The way you subjectively view this, is not evidence for anything, except your clear bias in favour of your beliefs. I shan't waste my time asking you to explain or evidence this latest bare assumption, as you seem to have abandoned all pretence of debate now.
 
The way you subjectively view this, is not evidence for anything, except your clear bias in favour of your beliefs. I shan't waste my time asking you to explain or evidence this latest bare assumption, as you seem to have abandoned all pretence of debate now.
So they don’t have a conscience or they do? Where does that come from?
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
BS!!! It is ban of the Holy Bible!
No it isn't, do calm down. The site even has a reference tool enabling the bible to be quoted or cited by anyone at anytime. However it is entirely the discretion of the site owners what they allow on here, it is a public debate forum, but it is not publicly owned.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
So they don’t have a conscience or they do? Where does that come from?

To whom are you referring? You haven't addressed my post at all, so why would I be minded to do you the courtesy of offering any edification on the origins of a conscience? Debate involves reciprocity, if you are content to wave away all arguments and preach the bible at me, what's my motivation to continue exactly?
 
Top