• 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.

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I didn’t ask what the meaning of proselytizing is, @Subduction Zone said my post was proselytizing for one and you a song about truth for the other. You said it was so why was the song about speaking the truth proselytizing?
The proselytizing was called "saving souls from hell" in 19th century. It was not a shame to proselytize, it is God's commandment:

Don’t be afraid; from now on you will fish for people. Luke 5:10
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Some Jews follow the law and have not received Jesus Christ, some Jews were following the law that leads to Christ, have been born again and are believers just like the Church in Acts.
This post right here. It has nothing to do with the thread. It involve how and what another religion believes. And even is shows some confusion about Jewish converts. That is a bit of preaching and proselytizing.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Your God probably does not exist.

I think that we can say that the god of the Christian Bible has been ruled out by the evidence supporting evolution, which doesn't go away even if evolution is falsified. Why is all of that evidence there? What other logical possibility remains if evolution is ruled out? I can only think of one, a deceptive intelligent designer of immense power, whether supernatural or a race of superhuman extraterrestrials. Did the Christian deity plant evidence deceptively? The Bible says no:
  • Titus 1:2 "in the hope of eternal life that God, who cannot lie, promised before time began."
  • Hebrews 8:16 "so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the hope set before us."
I think that this argument excludes the possibility of a deity that doesn't lie and that claims to have created life the way the Bible describes that creation. It doesn't rule out other deities - deceptive deities like Loki, but it does rule out that one. Some Christian apologists seem to understand that, such as the ones who reinterpret the biblical narrative to reflect modern science, such as those claiming that a day of creation wasn't a literal day. This must be an attempt to save the deity from being caught in a lie. If that deity weren't defined as being incapable of lying, one wouldn't need all of those apologist verbal gymnastics. He could just say, "Well, God, in His infinite wisdom and for whatever His reasons, chose to deceive man." But they don't, and for good reason. There goes the promise of salvation if this deity lies. It becomes the promise of a known liar.

What do you think? Is this a compelling argument?

Why do so many Christians think that it is okay to lie about someone if you are "Lying for Jesus"?

Rhetorical question, of course. I'm sure you know why. Their agenda is promoting their religion, and their methods and values are not yours or mine.
  • "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther.
Your agenda is to teach and learn. Theirs is to indoctrinate. You values include honesty and critical thought. They value persuasion. You value reason applied to evidence. They value whatever persuades including specious argumentation and logical fallacy.

our sun like all stars have a finite lifespan, and ours will end in approximately 3.5 billion years, either collapsing into a red dwarf, or exploding into a supernova.

Hope you don't mind a correction.

It's correct that the sun has a finite life and that it will degenerate after going off the main sequence. It is estimated that the sun will burn for another five billion years before expanding and reddening into a red giant. Then the outer layers of the sun will separate from its core forming a planetary nebula around a white dwarf. Only stars much more massive than the sun can supernova, and those will leave a central core that is either a neutron star (such as pulsars and magnetars) or, if massive enough, a black hole.

I'd also like your feedback on the argument against the biblical god. Is it sound? Does it rule out the biblical god?

A human life cycle starts at pregnancy. That’s biology

You probably meant conception. When pregnancy begins depends on definition. Generally, it is defined as the time of endometrial implantation, but state legislators in anti-choice states will have motivation to define if legally as beginning with conception, given the implications of IUDs, birth control pills, and morning after pills, which terminate the conceptus prior to implantation.

But as you already read, when a human life begins doesn't matter unless one assumes that it is a moral imperative that a human life cannot ever be deliberately ended. That's not my belief, so it doesn't matter to me whether one calls a precognitive conceptus a human life, a baby, a child, or anything else.

Incidentally, biology also says that you are an ape. Wasn't it you objecting to that a few pages back? I'm guessing that you choose your biology to conform with your religious beliefs and to help you in your efforts to persuade rather than convince. You're going to want to pick those things that are consistent with the beliefs you are trying to promote while disregarding that which seems to support the opposite positions.

They are unwilling to repent.

Not true. Anybody with a conscience has felt remorse for deliberately wronging another, and regret for harming them unwittingly. What the skeptic is unwilling to do is repent to an imaginary deity for imaginary offenses against it.

It is serious insult to call any Christian as Nazi.

Why would a Christian Nazi be offended to be recognized as that? I doubt that any of these people would have been offended:

0798f2eb-6f1a-4d94-ac4f-41ddd40c92c9.jpg.pagespeed.ce.tG0sVIzLyg.jpg
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
If speaking the truth song is proselytizing then that tells me you know in your heart what the truth is and even you associate that with conversion.

I think you need re-read the definition of proselytising. You seem confused, though it's progress at least to see you acknowledge the post was in fact proselytising at last.
 
This post right here. It has nothing to do with the thread. It involve how and what another religion believes. And even is shows some confusion about Jewish converts. That is a bit of preaching and proselytizing.
#504 and #485 are the 2 posts. I answered appropriately to the comment that another member asked me. So how was that proselytizing? My view is from the Scriptures.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
So how was that proselytizing?
You have written in the profile: Believer. This is the severe case of proselytizing.
Everybody must be nothing, and have zero importance and no color. Just grey or dark. Because from nothing nothing comes. The satan is absolute nothingness.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Hope you don't mind a correction.

It's correct that the sun has a finite life and that it will degenerate after going off the main sequence. It is estimated that the sun will burn for another five billion years before expanding and reddening into a red giant. Then the outer layers of the sun will separate from its core forming a planetary nebula around a white dwarf. Only stars much more massive than the sun can supernova, and those will leave a central core that is either a neutron star (such as pulsars and magnetars) or, if massive enough, a black hole.

I'd also like your feedback on the argument against the biblical god. Is it sound? Does it rule out the biblical god?

I don't mind at all, thank you for the clarification, very edifying. As @Subduction Zone quipped, I plan to move before this.

What do you think? Is this a compelling argument?

Very compelling, I can see no flaw in the reasoning whatsoever, though I don't anticipate many apologists will be quite as enamoured of course, not any if I'm being honest. I've never understood why anyone finds the notion the errancy of the Genesis creation myth is solved by the rationalisation it is allegory, why would a deity with infinite knowledge to create a message and infinite power to communicate it, deal in allegory? It rationally follows such a deity would have known how quickly its human pets would see through it anyway.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
You have written in the profile: Believer. This is the severe case of proselytizing.
Everybody must be nothing, and have zero importance and no color. Just grey or dark. Because from nothing nothing comes. The satan is absolute nothingness.
I don't think proselytising means what you think it means. Actually that might explain a great deal.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Biology says I’m a human being, evolution is the false interpretation that human beings are the same family as apes.

Biology also says the taxonomy of humans is that they're part of a family of great apes, it's a scientific fact, with converging objective evidence from multiple scientific fields. Genetics alone would suffice to establish this fact.

Humans are apes – ‘Great Apes’

Human and chimp DNA is so similar because the two species are so closely related. Humans, chimps and bonobos descended from a single ancestor species that lived six or seven million years ago.
 
Top