Religious

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Oh, yes there is you commit the sin in your heart intellectually, just as the apostles would by obeying Jesus to drink his blood. They had evil thoughts of drinking blood, just like the adulter through his thoughts.

You are entitled to your personal opinion, not your facts. You are not the arbitrator of what sin is or isn't.

You don't know they had evil thoughts. Are you God that you know this?
You have no idea what was going through their mind. This is an argument from silence.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No one is perfect. Are you without sin? Also, the disciples often didn't understand Jesus' teachings? But this is why Jesus promised to send them the Helper to lead them into all truth -- The RCC -- oops, I mean the Holy Spirit.

And besides, they didn't abandon Jesus, did they?

There is no such thing as symbolic sin. Quote me chapter and verse.

Besides, if you really believe that then you cannot also believe that Jesus is sinless. After all, He caused them to stumble, according to your theory. So you're right back to square one.

Have read Hebrews 9 yet to figure out when the sacrifice actually took place?

I have told you, commit the sin with your intellect. You can commit adultry with your thought, not only by the physical act. If there is no physical act it is symbolic. In fact, Luther had a bad case of scruples, thinking he sinned constantly. Scruples is sinning by thought.

No wonder he invented a theology where, the justified man is still as sinful as before, but he is "cloaked" in Christ's righteousness. Had to justify those multiple daily sinful thoughts.

Therefore, if you don't believe you can sin symbolically, take it up with Luther.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You don't know they had evil thoughts. Are you God that you know this?
You have no idea what was going through their mind. This is an argument from silence.

I know from your logic. The apostles knew drinking blood is sinful, so by definition the thoughts are evil, not good or innocent.

Am I God? No, but you seem to think you are. You do not know through God's sovereignty if He willed drinking blood is good for them.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You don't know they had evil thoughts. Are you God that you know this?
You have no idea what was going through their mind. This is an argument from silence.

Either do you, so who is making an argument from silence? The facts of violation of the Law, as a sinful act points to the evil intent. The facts support me.


Goodnight, you repeating the same objection to your own logic is too painful to continue

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I know from your logic. The apostles knew drinking blood is sinful, so by definition the thoughts are evil, not good or innocent.

So that means that someone who knows stealing is sinful is a sinner just by having that knowledge?

Yes, the apostles knew and no one questioned Jesus since they also knew that he was using figurative language.

Am I God? No, but you seem to think you are. You do not know through God's sovereignty if He willed drinking blood is good for them.

You're waxing incoherent again.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Either do you, so who is making an argument from silence? The facts of violation of the Law, as a sinful act points to the evil intent. The facts support me.

Goodnight, you repeating the same objection to your own logic is too painful to continue

You have no facts. Nothing. Nada. Zero. This is why you must go outside the bible to try to make your lame case. That guy's website carries more authority for you than does the bible.

Have a nice night.

[Hank]

I was watching a Theist vs atheist debate the other night and a gentleman who posted a comment got to the heart of the matter imho.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...debate-videos/

"Atheists just don’t believe metaphysical “nothing” is a possible state of affairs. They believe that there was always some “thing” (mainly QV/QF). So the atheist is happy to admit that the QV/QF simply has no explanation, that is to say, to ask “where did those things come from”, is a stupid question. So when they say nothing, they mean “something,”

"The theist also does not believe that metaphysical “nothing” is possible, because God is a necessary being, who exists in all possible worlds, and thus cannot be negated out of existence. So God is the explanation for the QV/QF (or the first physical event). To ask where did God come from, is also a stupid question because God is simply defined as the uncaused cause. If you start talking about a created god, then you are not talking about GOD anymore (by definition).

So, which of these “theories”you hold to will depend on your philosophical presupposition. You are either happy to end your quest at the QV/QF (are intellectually satisfied that these “things” require no explanation). Or you choose to believe that the only way something can come from nothing, is if a transcendent cause exists, and decided to create a universe/multiverse ex nihilo."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Hank

I was watching a Theist vs atheist debate the other night and a gentleman who posted a comment got to the heart of the matter imho.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...debate-videos/

"Atheists just don’t believe metaphysical “nothing” is a possible state of affairs. They believe that there was always some “thing” (mainly QV/QF). So the atheist is happy to admit that the QV/QF simply has no explanation, that is to say, to ask “where did those things come from”, is a stupid question. So when they say nothing, they mean “something,”

"The theist also does not believe that metaphysical “nothing” is possible, because God is a necessary being, who exists in all possible worlds, and thus cannot be negated out of existence. So God is the explanation for the QV/QF (or the first physical event). To ask where did God come from, is also a stupid question because God is simply defined as the uncaused cause. If you start talking about a created god, then you are not talking about GOD anymore (by definition).

So, which of these “theories”you hold to will depend on your philosophical presupposition. You are either happy to end your quest at the QV/QF (are intellectually satisfied that these “things” require no explanation). Or you choose to believe that the only way something can come from nothing, is if a transcendent cause exists, and decided to create a universe/multiverse ex nihilo."

What does the shorthand "QV/QF" mean?

[Hank]

[QUOTE=boxcar]What does the shorthand "QV/QF" mean?[/QUOTE

QV/QF =Quantum Vacuum/Field

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=Hank]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What does the shorthand "QV/QF" mean?[/QUOTE

QV/QF =Quantum Vacuum/Field

Thank you, sir.

[boxcar]

ShowMe, you have said that a sacrificial death took place at the Last Supper. So, please tell me a sacrifice for what, specifically? What did the sacrificial death at the Supper accomplish? What was its purpose?

[Actor]

Great song. Since boxcar doesn't do video I've included a link to the lyrics. Enjoy all.

http://www.metrolyrics.com/dear-god-lyrics-xtc.html

[YT="Dear God"]hk41Gbjljfo[/YT]

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What did the sacrificial death at the Supper accomplish? What was its purpose?

It was an economic stimulus for the wine and cracker industries.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

It was an economic stimulus for the wine and cracker industries.

That explanation would be a lot closer to the truth than the RCC's heresy.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And the denial of the existence of God who has revealed himself to man through the bible ...

What we've never gotten a straight answer from you is this: How do you know that this so-called revelation of God through the Bible is real? How do you know it's not all made up? Or at least partially made up?

You have given your opinion that the whole thing is consistent, without internal contradiction. Is that it? Is that your whole argument? Your only argument?

Just asking.