Christian Bronies of the Reformation 92 members · 230 stories

I made this group because many of the others are dying or do not provide the services that both Christian and secular users desire, and I can't just up and ask for adminship by means of proposing my new plan with a different style of administration and a different focus of conversation (believe me, I tried). So I just made a new group. Anybody can join and do this, all are welcome.

Besides, those groups that are active and provide exactly what users come for tend to strictly represent very specific schools of Christian thought. This group will represent all of them, but it will admittedly put more emphasis on the old Evangelical schools of thought, the original Protestants, such as the Lutherans (hence the title), as they are remarkably poorly represented in proportion to how numerous they are on FIMFiction.

What's also important is that I'm not an Evangelical Protestant myself, which leads to another major principle of this group: This group's motto is that we will disagree with what we have to say to each other, but will defend the right for all voices to speak.

To ensure that my new plan will work, I have created a new system of governance, as explained here, that can sustain itself even long after my absence.

We don't have much in the way of official rules, but they are clear and defined for all to see here.

If you want to discuss matters without coming across as an idiot, read these guidelines.

Comments ( 30 )
  • Viewing 11 - 30 of 30

439343

My apologies for taking so long, my internet went down and I was disconnected for over a week.

I’m glad we agree that the definition doesn’t include god

If what you care about the definition is that it doesn't include God then you have serious problems to understand phylosophy.

I’m saying that the word god =/= the word truth in the same way that the word boat =/= the word truth. (...) They aren’t synonyms. It’s the same with god. God could be a source of true information, he could be a truthful character, it could be true that he exists, but god =/= truth.
To say that god = truth doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t get it.
To my understanding these are 2 separate ideas. To say that they are the same makes no sense to me, so I’m asking for clarification.

Dude, how hard it can be to you understand that God is Truth because it's his nature? He cannot lie, he always says the truth, he follows the definition quite well, hence, God is Truth.

It’s like me saying space is physicist and you saying no space is the vacuum beyond planet earth and a physicist is a person that study’s space (among other things), they are different things.

If you want to change the analogy in order to show your state of mind, alright, but it doesn't make mine false, you only keep showing that you don't understand what others tell you (including that "Space" has no clear definition by a physicist, "the vacuum beyond planet earth" really doesn't fit)

Will you pleasestop being so obtuse? I talk about my understanding because that’s all I have, just like all you have is your understanding.
I’m going with my understanding of the definition you gave, which didn’t include the word god or any description of the being god.

Just because you have an understanding doesn't mean it's correct, the idea of always looking up for sources and information to see and check if what you know is correct is an essential part of having a critical mind. On this case, you are defining a word based on your understanding while ignoring, and not even trying to research on your own, what people means with "God is Truth" then, naturally, you're going to hit a roadblock, since you aren't checking if your understanding is correct in the first place. On that regard, trying to dodge responsibility and now saying "I'm using yours" when you started by first justifying your "understanding", that's not having a discussion in good faith, that's just trying to find a justification of "your statement isn't true because it doesn't have a word I don't like" while ignoring any type of actual understanding.

You understand others by searching for the reasoning, not by saying "your definition doesn't have God in it" because, otherwise, all you're doing is being obtuse.

This is not what’s happening. I’m trying to have a good faith conversation and I’m asking for help understanding but you are accusing me of dishonesty. It’s a very Christian way of behaving.

No, we've already have this conversation in multiple occasions, all you do is pretending to be nice while, condescendingly, either bully or humiliate others into submission because they don't follow your line of thinking. The Christian thing would be to show the other cheek, but The Bible doesn't say that you should allow yourself to be bullied and it also say to help your neighbor and you are still doing the common practice of searching for excuses to keep your reasoning while treating others as if they were idiots.

Seriously, Im not trying to monopolize the term when I say ‘my understanding’.

That's not what it looks like by reading the discussion, it seems more like an attempt to control the narrative of the discussion, especially with responses like this: "I think you will agree that the way you worded your message, even a theist might think you said what I interpreted."

What? I don’t ‘deny’ god at all. I simply am not convinced god/the supernatural exists due to a lack of evidence.
Finding that the ‘evidence’ presented by theists is lacking is not a result of me blindly refusing to accept it, it’s a problem with the evidence.

You say you don't deny him, but every time people try to bring an argument or evidence on the matter (from the Teleological argument to historical) you usually try to dismiss it. There's a fine line between skepticism and maskarading denial and long ago I determined you were the latter.

How is talking about both these concepts, one at a time, moving the goal posts when both were part of the initial conversation?
Answer: it isn’t.

The conversation began with asking about how God is truth. The existence of God (which is irrelevant for this conversation) wasn't brought up except by you as if evidence of God's existence was related or is important to whether or not he fits into the word Truth. You could argue that the 7th definition is related though, but that still means that the conversation isn't focusing on the actual matter: how God fits into the word "Truth".

No it isn’t, that’s ridiculous and asinine. (...) If I suspect that my wife is cheating on me then I can investigate it without believing it’s true. I don’t have to believe god exists before investigating.

In fact, it’s better if you withhold belief in both side (that he exists and that he doesn’t exist) when investigating. That’s how you eliminate the most bias. That’s also my position btw: I don’t believe he exists nor do I believe he doesn’t exist. If you ask me ‘does god exist?’ my answer isn’t ‘no’, it’s ‘I don’t know’. If you ask me ‘do you believe god or gods exists?’ my answer is ‘no’. If you ask ‘do you believe all gods are fake and imaginary?’ my answer is ‘no’.
Agreed, which is why faith is an unreliable path to truth and I have no part in it.

You know that the job of a lawyer is to find evidence of the client to be innocent but, part of it, is to believe )A.K.A: have faith) in the client itself and its innocence, right? And even if the client is already known to be guilty, the lawyer's job is to uphold the law for a fair treatment to happen, in other words, investigate in the belief that he can find a fair sentence to him. Before doing anything, you have to believe in that something, even if slightly, otherwise the mind would be useless.

Yes, that include natural needs, I've personally met people who refuse to believe they need help or that they can, or should, search for a better life. If you don't believe, then you cannot act upon it. Or, in the case you live in a dictatorship, if you don't have faith that things will improve, then you might as well be dead.

what claim am I making that I have a burden of proof to demonstrate?

A necessity to be skeptic.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. In science, reason, logic, and law the time to believe something is when there is evidence, not until it’s been disproven. In law someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have it exactly backwards.

This actually works for what I said about lawyers and faith: Presumption of innocence means that, despite accusations existing against your client (or the accused) that evidence must be found and, until then, the person is innocent, in other words, having faith in the innocence of the person until evidence shows he is guilty. To accept the accusation of guilty without evidence, in other words: People believes in the innocence of the person until it has been proven or, if there's alleged evidence, to see if the evidence works but, either guilty or innocent, one goes with a faith in the person being right or wrong. The same way, in science, bacteria was shown to be real because it was first theorized about their existence and, believing they were real, the scientist investigated the subject until they found evidence for it. Same for reason and logic, people first believe, then act.

You just don't see it that way because you don't want to see it that way, but that's how it works.

All of the above please! As long as it’s demonstrable, testable, not fallacious, and it actually proves the existence of a supernatural being! If you just prove that a few mundane details of the bible are true (like the names of cities or the customs of the people), then I’m not particularly interested. Proving the exodus would be neat especially considering that scholars agree the exodus never happened, but historically proving the exodus doesn’t prove god either.

Well, there's already evidence of Jesus existing (by historians words) many ignores that Moses went through today's Saudi Arabia and even eclipses has been used to determine the details about The Bible now, if you want to say that this isn't evidence, think: how Christianity exist without the resurrection of Jesus? It's the basic and primary root of the whole faith, without it, there's no reason to believe. There are multiple accounts that prove multiple instances of The BIble happening (heck, it even predicted Alexander The Great before he was a thing) and none of this would have remained if it didn't have a background to check and prove.

I will accept anything if sufficient evidence is provided

Sure.

but anyone that has followed our conversations will know that you are lying (or perhaps projecting)

Saying that I'm projecting while stating that others (without asking them) agree with you is, basically, a projection. If you really are so eager to show you are correct, why don't you start a thread in one of these Christian forums for opinions and ask what people actually think? Or do you have so much faith in your reasoning and that people believe in your wording blidnly?

439335
I forgot how exhausting it is to communicate with you.

They don't include God because that would be more of a theological argument while the Spanish Royal Academy focuses on language roots.

I’m glad we agree that the definition doesn’t include god.

To imply that God isn't truth because he isn't in a definition,

No, that’s ridiculous. I’m saying that the word god =/= the word truth in the same way that the word boat =/= the word truth. A boat exists, a boat provides accurate information (from its instruments and stuff), true things can be said about a boat, but the word boat is not interchangeable with the word truth. They aren’t synonyms. It’s the same with god. God could be a source of true information, he could be a truthful character, it could be true that he exists, but god =/= truth.

In the same way that you wouldn’t make someone swear to tell the boat, the full boat, and nothing but the boat in court; you wouldn’t ask them to tell the god, the whole god, and nothing but the god either.

I happen to not believe that god exists, but forget that for a second. Even if god does exist and he tells the truth, he helps people see the truth of reality, that doesn’t mean he is truth. This is something I have heard before from christians (god is truth). If they mean that he is the source of an important truth (the afterlife conditions for humanity) then cool. To say that god = truth doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t get it. Maybe I’m missing something, but when you give the definition of god as a mind that exists without a physical brain (among other things), and the definition of truth as comporting with reality (among other things), then they are clearly 2 separate ideas.

To then still say that god is truth is like trying to say that 5=7. They are different in my mind and I don’t know what you mean.

I’m not saying that god isn’t truthful or it’s not true that god exists because of the definition, I’m saying that the statement ‘god is truth’ is something I don’t understand.

is like saying that Space doesn't exist because it cannot be defined by physicist.

No, that’s not what it’s like at all. It’s like me saying space is physicist and you saying no space is the vacuum beyond planet earth and a physicist is a person that study’s space (among other things), they are different things.

I’m not saying that god doesn’t exist because the word god is not synonymous with truth! (I’m not even saying that god doesn’t exist! I’m just not convinced he does exist.)

Understanding of a word =/= The actual definition of said word. By stating that you're using a word based on what you understand you are already using it based on what is convenient to you, even if you deny it.

Will you pleasestop being so obtuse? I talk about my understanding because that’s all I have, just like all you have is your understanding. I’m asking to be explained what people mean, and when they say something that doesn’t make sense then I explain what I do understand so that the gaps can be filled in. If truth=X and god=Y (where X and Y are the definitions given for the terms) and X=/=Y then truth =/=god. That doesn’t tell you anything about the trustworthiness or existence of god and I never said it did.

The same way, I am focusing on definition but if we're going to go with your "understanding" then I could just go the same way as you do and add God into what Truth is since he is reality, a quality of truthfulness, etc. But since that would be to go against the definition of the word and using a word based on what you "understand" is wrong, I would rather stick to the definition and then focus in whether or not God fits in there based on arguments and premises.

I’m going with my understanding of the definition you gave, which didn’t include the word god or any description of the being god. I’m also communicating what I understood of what you said so that if I misunderstood you can correct me. Instead you accuse me of using my understanding to go against the definition and redefine it to support my position. This is not what’s happening. I’m trying to have a good faith conversation and I’m asking for help understanding but you are accusing me of dishonesty. It’s a very Christian way of behaving.

I think we actually agree here that we should stick to the agreed upon definitions and then discuss whether god exists or not.

Seriously, Im not trying to monopolize the term when I say ‘my understanding’. I’m making it clear that this is simply my perception of the word and I’m not declaring that it’s the only acceptable definition.

That means you are using a different definition of the word truth (exactly what I said, so we agree again!)

It seems you don't understand the matter here. You are stating that God isn't truth because he doesn't fit into your "understanding" and you want to deny its nature (this, he is) as Truth because he isn't in a definition.

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. Please accept my apology if I’m failing to be clear. I’m saying that the word truth refers to an abstract concept of ‘matching reality’ (among other things). The word god refers to a supernatural being. To my understanding these are 2 separate ideas. To say that they are the same makes no sense to me, so I’m asking for clarification.
(Again: the reason I keep saying ‘to my understanding’ is because I’m humble enough to know that I could be misunderstanding. I’m not declaring what I say as hard fact and I’m open to looking at it differently).
Can it be true that god exists? Yes! I happen to disagree, but that’s not relevant to the definition of the terms.

There is where we don't agree because your reasoning to deny God is different from the reasons I don't deny God even if the definition used is the same.

What? I don’t ‘deny’ god at all. I simply am not convinced god/the supernatural exists due to a lack of evidence.

No, every time we have this conversations you always put yoru biases in front, everyone does and to say that you put them "at the door" is a lie both to the person you're debating with as well to yourself because reality (hence, truth) is that everyone is biased and they act based on such biases.

Yes we all have biases that colour our thinking, but I do leave my biases at the door (as best I can). If someone points out that I’m being biased (treating an idea differently because of my preexisting beliefs instead of looking at its content and merit), then I stop and re-examine the idea as closely and open minded as possible.

In other words, you could be shown evidence of any kind and you would prefer to deny it by putting said evidence on something else, including bad understandings of how everything else works.

No, I don’t prefer anything. I’m not angry or against god/the supernatural, I simply am not convinced they exist. Finding that the ‘evidence’ presented by theists is lacking is not a result of me blindly refusing to accept it, it’s a problem with the evidence.

I’m glad you concede that gods existence is debatable though!

Another example of you not really understanding what we're talking about, if you read well, you can see that I wrote:
if you look at the other definitions, mostly because God, as depicted in The Bible, can follow and fulfill all but the second definition of "Truth", including comporting to reality. Granted, this is debatable, but I'm sure your biases will tell you that this is false.
In other words, what's debatable is how many variants of the definition of "Truth" does God fits, not if whether or not his existance is debtable. You literally read what you wanted to read and responded based on your own biases.

I concede here that I misunderstood what you meant here. I think you will agree that the way you worded your message, even a theist might think you said what I interpreted. That’s ok though, I accept your clarification and I apologize for my mistake.
Still: even if every single definition of the word truth could be applied to something (it’s true they exist, they are truthful, etc...) it’s still unclear to me why you would say that they are truth.
If the definition of a lie is an untruth, and I then tell an untruth (the world is flat), then does that mean lie = flat earth? No! It’s a lie that the earth is flat, but the word ‘lie’ is not equal to the words ‘flat earth’. A cop isn’t going to say “where were you last night, and tell the god! I don’t want to hear any flat earths from your mouth!”

How is that moving the goal posts?

From whether or not God fits into the definition of Truth to how the word "true" is being used with God, which is a different subject.

I agree, they are 2 different subjects (which I said). Both are being discussed because the post I was responding to literally said: “Both he is the truth, and I believe it to be absolutely true”.
How is talking about both these concepts, one at a time, moving the goal posts when both were part of the initial conversation?
Answer: it isn’t.

No, something has to be believed before trying to demonstrate, it's the basic principle of The Scientific Method

No it isn’t, that’s ridiculous and asinine. We can do thought experiments where we imagine what it would be like if something were true and then seek to demonstrate it. If I suspect that my wife is cheating on me then I can investigate it without believing it’s true. I don’t have to believe god exists before investigating.

In fact, it’s better if you withhold belief in both side (that he exists and that he doesn’t exist) when investigating. That’s how you eliminate the most bias. That’s also my position btw: I don’t believe he exists nor do I believe he doesn’t exist. If you ask me ‘does god exist?’ my answer isn’t ‘no’, it’s ‘I don’t know’. If you ask me ‘do you believe god or gods exists?’ my answer is ‘no’. If you ask ‘do you believe all gods are fake and imaginary?’ my answer is ‘no’.

and the basic principle of Faith.

Agreed, which is why faith is an unreliable path to truth and I have no part in it.

You not wanting to follow this is just as excuse for not wanting to accept the reality, or truth, that you really aren't in any position here.

No, it’s not that I don’t want to follow you. As I’ve said from the beginning, I don’t understand what ‘god is truth’ means.

I don’t pick my conclusion and then try to support it. I’m not making excuses to support my existing beliefs. I follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Sure, I can have the burden of proof, but it doesn't mean you have none,

Yes it does. I recognize I could be wrong tho, what claim am I making that I have a burden of proof to demonstrate?

because a disagreement has to be based on something beyond "you don't have evidence" because denying the existence of something based on a lack of evidence not only is irrational, it's even against legality and scicence. In other words, you do have the burden of evidence, in having to show you have an actual position beyond just trying to find excuses to deny other people.

This portion of your response is suffering from fractal wrongess.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. In science, reason, logic, and law the time to believe something is when there is evidence, not until it’s been disproven. In law someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have it exactly backwards.

Are you actually going to provide evidence or not?

Which one? Archeological (like the Exxodus)? Argumentative/Philosophical (like the Teleological argument)? Scientific (although Archeology is a science)?

All of the above please! As long as it’s demonstrable, testable, not fallacious, and it actually proves the existence of a supernatural being! If you just prove that a few mundane details of the bible are true (like the names of cities or the customs of the people), then I’m not particularly interested. Proving the exodus would be neat especially considering that scholars agree the exodus never happened, but historically proving the exodus doesn’t prove god either.

The crux of the matter is, would you accept it?

I will accept anything if sufficient evidence is provided, including things that I completely disagree with at the moment (like the flat earth hypothesis). The thing is, I understand critical thinking and logic. I understand where the burden of proof lies. I apply the same standard of evidence for all propositions I encounter. If you offer fallacious reasoning, or assertions without evidence, or an argument that can be used to support anything from your god to other gods to universe farting pixies, then I’m going to point out the issues and I’m not going to be convinced. You shouldn’t be convinced either.

Previous conversations has already showed you would never accept evidence on a philosophical stand point and you tend to always go based on what is convenient to you when it comes to science, so not much of a reason to debate you.

You can say that, but anyone that has followed our conversations will know that you are lying (or perhaps projecting). I am completely open to being presented with evidence. If I find it lacking, I will explain why. If I’m misunderstanding, or I’m just wrong, then I welcome being corrected.

All that said, yes please present your evidence! Start with your very best one and we can discuss it. We can let the lurkers judge how honest and open minded the two of us are.

439331

Words have different meanings when they are used in different contexts. If there is any confusion when 2 people are talking over the meaning of a word then definitions need to be discussed or else people are going to talk past each other. (...) In the context of these conversations, I give the equivalent of your definition 7. I’m fine with all those definitions tho. I couldn’t help but notice that none of them include ‘god’.

They don't include God because that would be more of a theological argument while the Spanish Royal Academy focuses on language roots. To imply that God isn't truth because he isn't in a definition, is like saying that Space doesn't exist because it cannot be defined by physicist.

No, I’m not doing that at all. I’m saying that my understanding of the word truth is ‘reality’. I’m asking the other person to provide the definition they are using (which you did, so thanks). I accept your definition of truth and I’m fine using it for this conversation. Your definition of truth also doesn’t include a mind that exists absent a brain, created the whole universe, and cares about who I have sex with, so we are in complete agreement.

Understanding of a word =/= The actual definition of said word. By stating that you're using a word based on what you understand you are already using it based on what is convenient to you, even if you deny it. The same way, I am focusing on definition but if we're going to go with your "understanding" then I could just go the same way as you do and add God into what Truth is since he is reality, a quality of truthfulness, etc. But since that would be to go against the definition of the word and using a word based on what you "understand" is wrong, I would rather stick to the definition and then focus in whether or not God fits in there based on arguments and premises.

That means you are using a different definition of the word truth (exactly what I said, so we agree again!)

It seems you don't understand the matter here. You are stating that God isn't truth because he doesn't fit into your "understanding" and you want to deny its nature (this, he is) as Truth because he isn't in a definition. There is where we don't agree because your reasoning to deny God is different from the reasons I don't deny God even if the definition used is the same.

No, my biases don’t tell me that it’s false that god exists, I leave my bias at the door when having these conversations. The lack of evidence causes me to lack belief that he does exist.

No, every time we have this conversations you always put yoru biases in front, everyone does and to say that you put them "at the door" is a lie both to the person you're debating with as well to yourself because reality (hence, truth) is that everyone is biased and they act based on such biases. In other words, you could be shown evidence of any kind and you would prefer to deny it by putting said evidence on something else, including bad understandings of how everything else works.

I’m glad you concede that gods existence is debatable though!

Another example of you not really understanding what we're talking about, if you read well, you can see that I wrote:

if you look at the other definitions, mostly because God, as depicted in The Bible, can follow and fulfill all but the second definition of "Truth", including comporting to reality. Granted, this is debatable, but I'm sure your biases will tell you that this is false.

In other words, what's debatable is how many variants of the definition of "Truth" does God fits, not if whether or not his existance is debtable. You literally read what you wanted to read and responded based on your own biases.

How is that moving the goal posts?

From whether or not God fits into the definition of Truth to how the word "true" is being used with God, which is a different subject.

You are saying god exists, I’m asking for evidence. The time to believe something is after it’s been demonstrated. That goes for your god, the existence of space, and the existence of the sub-atomic world. You are making the claim so you have the burden of proof. I am not making a claim (about god not existing), so I have no burden of proof. I don’t see a problem here.

No, something has to be believed before trying to demonstrate, it's the basic principle of The Scientific Method and the basic principle of Faith. You not wanting to follow this is just as excuse for not wanting to accept the reality, or truth, that you really aren't in any position here. Sure, I can have the burden of proof, but it doesn't mean you have none, because a disagreement has to be based on something beyond "you don't have evidence" because denying the existence of something based on a lack of evidence not only is irrational, it's even against legality and scicence. In other words, you do have the burden of evidence, in having to show you have an actual position beyond just trying to find excuses to deny other people.

Are you actually going to provide evidence or not?

Which one? Archeological (like the Exxodus)? Argumentative/Philosophical (like the Teleological argument)? Scientific (although Archeology is a science)? The crux of the matter is, would you accept it? Previous conversations has already showed you would never accept evidence on a philosophical stand point and you tend to always go based on what is convenient to you when it comes to science, so not much of a reason to debate you.

439330

Well, that's not, exactly what "truth" means, here are the definitions of "Truth" according to the Spanish Royal Academy:

Del lat. verĭtas, -ātis.
1. f. Conformity of things with the concept that the mind forms of them.
2. f. Conformity of what is said with what is felt or thought.
3. f. Property that has one thing to always remain the same without any mutation.
4. f. Judgment or proposition which can not be rationally denied.
5. f. Quality of truthfulness.
6. f. Clear expression, without rebozo or flattery, with which someone is corrected or reprimanded. U. m. in pl. Cayetano told him two truths.
7. f. reality (‖ actual existence of something).

Words have different meanings when they are used in different contexts. If there is any confusion when 2 people are talking over the meaning of a word then definitions need to be discussed or else people are going to talk past each other. That’s why I define what I mean and ask the other person what they mean. (I want to point out that dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive, that means they tell us how words are used by people they don’t declare how words have to be used.) In the context of these conversations, I give the equivalent of your definition 7. I’m fine with all those definitions tho. I couldn’t help but notice that none of them include ‘god’.

If you want to say that god is truth then that’s fine, but my definition of truth doesn’t include being a mind that exists absent a brain, created the whole universe, and cares about who I have sex with.

Which is a very narrow understanding of what "Truth" is, in other words, you are defining "Truth" into what is convenient to you while ignoring other concepts or points of view, which isn't very honest.

No, I’m not doing that at all. I’m saying that my understanding of the word truth is ‘reality’. I’m asking the other person to provide the definition they are using (which you did, so thanks). I accept your definition of truth and I’m fine using it for this conversation. Your definition of truth also doesn’t include a mind that exists absent a brain, created the whole universe, and cares about who I have sex with, so we are in complete agreement.

It actually can, if you look at the other definitions, mostly because God, as depicted in The Bible, can follow and fulfill all but the second definition of "Truth", including comporting to reality.

It actually can’t, because if you look at your definitions at no point did you define truth as ‘the god of the bible’. That means you are using a different definition of the word truth (exactly what I said, so we agree again!)
If you want to say that god is a truthful/honest being then that’s fine. If you want to say it’s true god exists then that’s also fine.
If you want to say that god is truth, then that’s where you loose me.

Granted, this is debatable, but I'm sure your biases will tell you that this is false.

No, my biases don’t tell me that it’s false that god exists, I leave my bias at the door when having these conversations. The lack of evidence causes me to lack belief that he does exist. I’m glad you concede that gods existence is debatable though!

Quite separately, if you want to say that it is true that god exists then cool! I understand what you are saying. If you want to say that the being god always tells the truth then great, I understand that claim as well. I am not convinced you are correct, but I’m open to the idea.

So moving the goalpost, ok then

How is that moving the goal posts?
438495

Both he is the truth, and I believe it to be absolutely true

I’m addressing both parts of this post. The ‘he is truth’ I don’t understand. The ‘it is true’ I do understand (but don’t agree).

Please provide evidence that god exists, and then we can examine if he is always truthful or not.

Oh, the old trustworthy, the kind of argument an atheist that has zero form of refute God prefers to go by, even though the same argument can be done about concepts like Space or the sub-atomic world.

I guess it’s trustworthy, but only because it’s rational. You are saying god exists, I’m asking for evidence. The time to believe something is after it’s been demonstrated. That goes for your god, the existence of space, and the existence of the sub-atomic world. You are making the claim so you have the burden of proof. I am not making a claim (about god not existing), so I have no burden of proof. I don’t see a problem here.


Are you actually going to provide evidence or not?

439326

I define truth as ‘that which comports to reality’.

Well, that's not, exactly what "truth" means, here are the definitions of "Truth" according to the Spanish Royal Academy:

Del lat. verĭtas, -ātis.
1. f. Conformity of things with the concept that the mind forms of them.
2. f. Conformity of what is said with what is felt or thought.
3. f. Property that has one thing to always remain the same without any mutation.
4. f. Judgment or proposition which can not be rationally denied.
5. f. Quality of truthfulness.
6. f. Clear expression, without rebozo or flattery, with which someone is corrected or reprimanded. U. m. in pl. Cayetano told him two truths.
7. f. reality (‖ actual existence of something).

So you follow only one concept of it, not the whole thing which is important because then you say:

If you want to say that god is truth then that’s fine, but my definition of truth doesn’t include being a mind that exists absent a brain, created the whole universe, and cares about who I have sex with.

Which is a very narrow understanding of what "Truth" is, in other words, you are defining "Truth" into what is convenient to you while ignoring other concepts or points of view, which isn't very honest.

That means that the concept of god can not be equal to the concept of truth IF your god has any qualities beyond ‘comporting to reality’ (UNLESS you are using a different definition of the word ‘truth’).

It actually can, if you look at the other definitions, mostly because God, as depicted in The Bible, can follow and fulfill all but the second definition of "Truth", including comporting to reality. Granted, this is debatable, but I'm sure your biases will tell you that this is false.

Quite separately, if you want to say that it is true that god exists then cool! I understand what you are saying. If you want to say that the being god always tells the truth then great, I understand that claim as well. I am not convinced you are correct, but I’m open to the idea.

So moving the goalpost, ok then.

Please provide evidence that god exists, and then we can examine if he is always truthful or not.

Oh, the old trustworthy, the kind of argument an atheist that has zero form of refute God prefers to go by, even though the same argument can be done about concepts like Space or the sub-atomic world.

439325
No I’m listening, I just don’t understand. I define truth as ‘that which comports to reality’. If you want to say that god is truth then that’s fine, but my definition of truth doesn’t include being a mind that exists absent a brain, created the whole universe, and cares about who I have sex with. That means that the concept of god can not be equal to the concept of truth IF your god has any qualities beyond ‘comporting to reality’ (UNLESS you are using a different definition of the word ‘truth’).

Quite separately, if you want to say that it is true that god exists then cool! I understand what you are saying. If you want to say that the being god always tells the truth then great, I understand that claim as well. I am not convinced you are correct, but I’m open to the idea. Please provide evidence that god exists, and then we can examine if he is always truthful or not.

438496

You seem to have a problem that "truth" and "God" can be together, as God cannot lie and he always fulfills his promises, for you to not understand the statement implies that you either don't want to listen or prefer to ignore it altogether.

438495
Can you elaborate on that? I don’t understand.
What’s the definition of the word ‘truth’ that you are using in this context?

438494
Both he is the truth, and I believe it to be absolutely true.

438493
That’s nonsensical.
Truth is that which comports with reality. If a child stole a cookie and lied about it, you wouldn’t say ‘cmon now, tell the christ about the cookie’. You’d say: ‘cmon now, tell the truth about the cookie’.

I think you are trying to say that christ is your lord and savior, and that is true?

438419
Truth, My Lord and Savior

437726
A myth.
Who is he to you?

Who is Christ to you?

Thank you for making this group. God reigns forever and ever.

Someone put a fic called "Bad Dragon Clop Collection" in the Adventure folder.

I like Christianity now.

413389
More time than you might think; I'm almost finished with the constitution. This group will be officially protected from mob rule.

Grand, another supposedly Christian group.
How long until it devolves into hate rants and debates that go in circles? Place your bets.
media4.giphy.com/media/v7nJDobMjY5MY/giphy-downsized-medium.gif
media.tenor.co/images/293cf685b27c67f85afcefb0db5af1c9/raw
Forgive me, experience has made me cynical.

Thanks for the invitation, brethren. :twilightsmile:

  • Viewing 11 - 30 of 30
Join our Patreon to remove these adverts!