• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bible Studies at White House. [W:154]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

I have spent time studying the Bible, which is why I accurately described it as a fairy tale. Pregnant virgins? A fairy tale. A talking snake? A fairy tale. A whale swallowing a man? A fairy tale. The Sun being stopped in the sky? A fairy tale. An alleged God that is so immoral it punishes the innocent by torturing them in hell forever? A fairy tale.

There is nothing in the Bible that is not simply made-up fairy tales. If you believe that a whale can swallow a man, if you believe in talking snakes, pregnant virgins, then you believe in fairy tales.

The fairy tale is yours, for buying into anti-supernaturalism without researching it properly.

For the record, contemporary miracles have now been documented in this work: https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525

As for pie-in-the-sky beliefs, you should read about some of yours:

Norman Geisler.jpg

By the way, I have 40 years studying the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and it's as solid as a rock. Do your due-diligence on it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

The fairy tale is yours, for buying into anti-supernaturalism without researching it properly.

For the record, contemporary miracles have now been documented in this work: https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525

As for pie-in-the-sky beliefs, you should read about some of yours:

View attachment 67221008

By the way, I have 40 years studying the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and it's as solid as a rock. Do your due-diligence on it.


And, what about that book do you find convincing? How are those arguments sound at all?
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

By the way, I have 40 years studying the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and it's as solid as a rock. Do your due-diligence on it.

I'm sorry you wasted so much time. I wonder, though, if you would be in favor of letting children do their "due-diligence on it", with "it" being religion in general? I doubt you would. If they truly do their due diligence outside an environment of aggressive proselytizing and brainwashing, they will not believe it as adults.

If you study for 40 years and come to the conclusion that a guy came back to life, two thousand years ago, after being dead for three days I'm going to assume that you weren't studying medicine. Furthermore, that you think the story is solid as a rock indicates how low your standards are for what you will consider a fact.
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

The fairy tale is yours, for buying into anti-supernaturalism without researching it properly.

For the record, contemporary miracles have now been documented in this work: https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525

As for pie-in-the-sky beliefs, you should read about some of yours:

View attachment 67221008

By the way, I have 40 years studying the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and it's as solid as a rock. Do your due-diligence on it.

Sorry, but it is logically impossible for anyone to "document" a miracle, and this statement from you shows that you have not done your homework. I'll prove it: 1. In order for a miracle to occur, the laws of physics must be violated. 2. We can only establish a violation of the laws of physics if we have absolute knowledge of those laws. Otherwise, like in a case of a person walking through a wall, like a ghost, or a pen being dropped and not falling, both of which can happen consistently with the known laws of physics, we don't know if we are witnessing a violation of the laws of physics or simply a rare occurrence of those laws. 3. Therefore, because we lack a complete understanding of the laws of physics, we can never establish when they may have been violated, and cannot establish any miracle as ever having occurred. No one can ever state they know a miracle occurred. This is an epistemological point against any claimed miracles.

Secondly, just because someone writes a book claiming that they have established a miracle does not make it true. It's simply a nonsensical claim.

There is no credible evidence that Jesus was even an historical person, much less that he did any miracle. By the way, all of his alleged miracles were the same ones attributed too earlier alleged gods, so it seems likely it's simply a pagan myth.
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

Sorry, but it is logically impossible for anyone to "document" a miracle, and this statement from you shows that you have not done your homework. I'll prove it: 1. In order for a miracle to occur, the laws of physics must be violated. 2. We can only establish a violation of the laws of physics if we have absolute knowledge of those laws. Otherwise, like in a case of a person walking through a wall, like a ghost, or a pen being dropped and not falling, both of which can happen consistently with the known laws of physics, we don't know if we are witnessing a violation of the laws of physics or simply a rare occurrence of those laws. 3. Therefore, because we lack a complete understanding of the laws of physics, we can never establish when they may have been violated, and cannot establish any miracle as ever having occurred. No one can ever state they know a miracle occurred. This is an epistemological point against any claimed miracles.

Secondly, just because someone writes a book claiming that they have established a miracle does not make it true. It's simply a nonsensical claim.

Well, got a flash for you. A major miracle has already been documented.

Documenting a Miracle


https://righterreport.com/2007/07/14/documenting-a-miracle/

There is no credible evidence that Jesus was even an historical person...

The only people who believe that rubbish are those who haven't done their homework. Recommended reading for you on that is "The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel, and "The Historical Jesus," by Gary Habermas.

By the way, all of his alleged miracles were the same ones attributed too earlier alleged gods, so it seems likely it's simply a pagan myth.

Nonsense.

23 REASONS WHY SCHOLARS KNOW JESUS IS NOT A COPY OF PAGAN RELIGIONS

https://jamesbishopblog.com/2015/01...-know-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-religions/

And for the record, science has never proven that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist. So your beliefs are not based on science.

You haven't done your homework.
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

Well, got a flash for you. A major miracle has already been documented.

Documenting a Miracle


https://righterreport.com/2007/07/14/documenting-a-miracle/



The only people who believe that rubbish are those who haven't done their homework. Recommended reading for you on that is "The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel, and "The Historical Jesus," by Gary Habermas.



Nonsense.

23 REASONS WHY SCHOLARS KNOW JESUS IS NOT A COPY OF PAGAN RELIGIONS

https://jamesbishopblog.com/2015/01...-know-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-religions/

And for the record, science has never proven that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist. So your beliefs are not based on science.

You haven't done your homework.

First off, I already proved that no miracle can ever be documented, and you did not even provide a rebuttal, except for a mere assertion that someone documented a miracle. That did not in any way refute my proof to the contrary. Some one may claim that they have documented a miracle, but then we should simply laugh at their claim, since the person making the claim cannot establish that the laws of physics were ever violated. Most likely anyone making such a claim does not even know Newtonian mechanics, much less modern physics, and is certainly ignorant of basic logic. Otherwise, they would never make such a foolish claim.

Your god of the gaps argument has long been shown to be irrational. The fact is if science never existed, if we had no scientific explanation for anything, that would still provide zero justification for your belief in a God. The only way you can justify such a belief is to provide evidence for it but you have none. In fact, we have a great deal of evidence that points against any claim for an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God. The problem of evil alone eliminates such a being. Moreover, it's a logical contradiction to claim a being can be all-powerful and all-knowing. An all-powerful being could change the past, but, if that's true, then one cannot know the past, so this type of being is logically impossible.

Moreover, you are making a completely irrational claim by arguing that a miracle proves the existence of a God. It does not. Even if we assume a miracle occurred, that would not in any one show that a God exists. Moreover, it would certainly tell us nothing about the nature of any said God, certainly not that it was a Christian-type of God.

You are simply making irrational claims and trying to pass them off as something rational. Every point you've made can easily be debunked by a second year philosophy student.
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

In fact, we have a great deal of evidence that points against any claim for an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God. The problem of evil alone eliminates such a being.

Not a chance.

“Whenever a person raises the problem of evil, they are also positing the existence of good. When you say something is evil you assume something is good. If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you also assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver, because if there’s not a moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil. So what is their question?” – Ravi Zacharias

And now, a question you most likely cannot adequately answer: You play God for a moment. How do you create man with free will and not allow man to do evil if he so chooses?

Moreover, it's a logical contradiction to claim a being can be all-powerful and all-knowing.

Tell me why?
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

Not a chance.

“Whenever a person raises the problem of evil, they are also positing the existence of good. When you say something is evil you assume something is good. If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you also assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver, because if there’s not a moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil. So what is their question?” – Ravi Zacharias

And now, a question you most likely cannot adequately answer: You play God for a moment. How do you create man with free will and not allow man to do evil if he so chooses?



Tell me why?

It is illogical for you to claim that morality must be dependent on a moral law-giver. That's false. Plato demonstrated the falseness of that claim thousands of years ago. It no more follows that there needs to be a moral law-giver than it would follow that the laws of physics are dependent on any law-giver with respect to those laws. It is impossible for any god to ground morality. This we know from Plato. If you claim that an act is moral simply because God did it, then you have no morality, because morality would then be arbitrary as God could have done something different. On the other hand, if you claim that God is acting morally because God is adhering to a moral standard, then this makes God subservient to a moral standard, and we merely need to refer to the moral standard, and we can skip any reference to any alleged God.

I already explained why it was illogical to claim an all-powerful and all-knowing being can exist. If it is all-powerful, then it can change the past, as well as the present, and future, for that matter, which thus makes the past, present, and future unknowable. Only if God could not change the future, could the future be known by such a being. So, it is logically impossible to be both all-powerful and all-knowing.
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

It is illogical for you to claim that morality must be dependent on a moral law-giver. That's false. Plato demonstrated the falseness of that claim thousands of years ago. It no more follows that there needs to be a moral law-giver than it would follow that the laws of physics are dependent on any law-giver with respect to those laws. It is impossible for any god to ground morality. This we know from Plato. If you claim that an act is moral simply because God did it, then you have no morality, because morality would then be arbitrary as God could have done something different. On the other hand, if you claim that God is acting morally because God is adhering to a moral standard, then this makes God subservient to a moral standard, and we merely need to refer to the moral standard, and we can skip any reference to any alleged God.

Nope. There is a God and his moral laws are objective. Your morality is subjective. It changes over time and over cultures like people change their shorts.

I already explained why it was illogical to claim an all-powerful and all-knowing being can exist. If it is all-powerful, then it can change the past, as well as the present, and future, for that matter, which thus makes the past, present, and future unknowable. Only if God could not change the future, could the future be known by such a being. So, it is logically impossible to be both all-powerful and all-knowing.

God doesn't change the past. I doubt he wants to. And although he knows the future choices someone like you or I make, he doesn't determine them. It's entirely logical.

But you didn't really answer the question. As God, how do you create man with free will and not allow man to do evil if he so chooses?
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

Nope. There is a God and his moral laws are objective. Your morality is subjective. It changes over time and over cultures like people change their shorts.



God doesn't change the past. I doubt he wants to. And although he knows the future choices someone like you or I make, he doesn't determine them. It's entirely logical.

But you didn't really answer the question. As God, how do you create man with free will and not allow man to do evil if he so chooses?

You merely asserting that God makes morality objective does not in any way accomplish the task of demonstrating to anyone that this is true. Assuming a God exists, it could be the case that God has zero concern for morality. Or, it could be the case that God's moral opinions are simply another subjective opinion that we add to the mix. There is no basis for assuming that a God somehow brings about objective morality. Certainly, you have offered no cogent argument to support such a claim.

Then you once again demonstrated your failure to follow logic when you claimed that you know God never changed the past. If we assume, solely for the sake of argument, your imaginary friend exists, and further assumes, for the sake of argument, that it is all powerful, then you have absolutely no way of knowing that God did not change the past. If God did change the past, how would you or anyone else know it happened? The point that you keep overlooking, however, is that it is a logical contradiction to claim a God is both all-powerful and all-knowing. If God can change the past, then it cannot be known. Same with the future, or even the present. It's also true that God cannot square a circle, since we know from mathematics that this is impossible. Nor can God name the smallest positive number greater than zero. You simply ignore logic to continue making unfounded assertions.

As far as the lame free-will argument, that has never saved you theists from the problem of evil. First off, much evil exists that has nothing to do with people. Natural weather events, and illnesses cause a lot of suffering that your so-called perfectly good God does nothing to address. Moreover, if your God were all-powerful, then it could definitely have made humans with free-will and without the desire to do evil. If you were to state otherwise, and further claim your God always does good, then you would also be stating that your God has no free-will and is forced to behave in a certain way. Is that really the logical contradiction you want to argue?
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

You merely asserting that God makes morality objective does not in any way accomplish the task of demonstrating to anyone that this is true. Assuming a God exists, it could be the case that God has zero concern for morality. Or, it could be the case that God's moral opinions are simply another subjective opinion that we add to the mix. There is no basis for assuming that a God somehow brings about objective morality. Certainly, you have offered no cogent argument to support such a claim.

Then you once again demonstrated your failure to follow logic when you claimed that you know God never changed the past. If we assume, solely for the sake of argument, your imaginary friend exists, and further assumes, for the sake of argument, that it is all powerful, then you have absolutely no way of knowing that God did not change the past. If God did change the past, how would you or anyone else know it happened? The point that you keep overlooking, however, is that it is a logical contradiction to claim a God is both all-powerful and all-knowing. If God can change the past, then it cannot be known. Same with the future, or even the present. It's also true that God cannot square a circle, since we know from mathematics that this is impossible. Nor can God name the smallest positive number greater than zero. You simply ignore logic to continue making unfounded assertions.

As far as the lame free-will argument, that has never saved you theists from the problem of evil. First off, much evil exists that has nothing to do with people. Natural weather events, and illnesses cause a lot of suffering that your so-called perfectly good God does nothing to address. Moreover, if your God were all-powerful, then it could definitely have made humans with free-will and without the desire to do evil. If you were to state otherwise, and further claim your God always does good, then you would also be stating that your God has no free-will and is forced to behave in a certain way. Is that really the logical contradiction you want to argue?

I'll stick with God's objective morality. No way you can disprove it.

As for man having nothing to do with weather disasters, etc., you must have missed the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.

And don't forget the devil. You folks always like to blame God but it's the devil who has you stymied.
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

I'll stick with God's objective morality. No way you can disprove it.

As for man having nothing to do with weather disasters, etc., you must have missed the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.

And don't forget the devil. You folks always like to blame God but it's the devil who has you stymied.

Surely you don't believe that Adam and Eve actually existed?
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

I'll stick with God's objective morality. No way you can disprove it.

As for man having nothing to do with weather disasters, etc., you must have missed the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.

And don't forget the devil. You folks always like to blame God but it's the devil who has you stymied.

Let's see you show what 'God's morality' actually is.
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

Religion in a nutshell.

What then would be the point of posting a graph illustrating God vs Satan kills?
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

I'll stick with God's objective morality. No way you can disprove it.

As for man having nothing to do with weather disasters, etc., you must have missed the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.

And don't forget the devil. You folks always like to blame God but it's the devil who has you stymied.

Actually, it's the idea of Satan that has authorized so much bad behavior from believers. In the twisted logic of faith, you can harm a person to help them be free of demons, like lesbianism or gambling. However, you can also claim, after the fact, that your own bad behavior was caused by a demonic possession that has since been extricated. So, Satan is an excuse for treating others like crap, the only difference being whether you claim that either YOU or THEY were possessed. It's an extremely childish and unsophisticated world view.

You need to quit arguing to us that god and Satan are different things. To we who don't believe in gods and demons, they are constructs of the same intellectual laziness. There is really no difference between a magical good and a magical bad. Hocus-pokus, in whatever form, is just the same BS by a different name.
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

I'll stick with God's objective morality. No way you can disprove it.

As for man having nothing to do with weather disasters, etc., you must have missed the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.

And don't forget the devil. You folks always like to blame God but it's the devil who has you stymied.

I did disprove God's alleged objective morality. In fact, I explained how Plato disproved it thousands of years ago.

There was no such thing as a literal Adam and Eve and an alleged fall from grace. The idea is immoral. As if all people are morally to blame for what other humans did in the past?
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

Actually, it's the idea of Satan that has authorized so much bad behavior from believers. In the twisted logic of faith, you can harm a person to help them be free of demons, like lesbianism or gambling. However, you can also claim, after the fact, that your own bad behavior was caused by a demonic possession that has since been extricated. So, Satan is an excuse for treating others like crap, the only difference being whether you claim that either YOU or THEY were possessed. It's an extremely childish and unsophisticated world view.

Blaming others for one's own personal bad behavior is childish. Owning up to one's faults is being more mature. As for helping lesbians and others involved in ungodly lifestyles, the Holy Spirit can work wonders, and in a good way. The God-detractors never have giving the Holy Spirit his proper due, because they don't know him or what he can do.

You need to quit arguing to us that god and Satan are different things.

You need to quit being in denial that they are two separate beings.
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

I did disprove God's alleged objective morality. In fact, I explained how Plato disproved it thousands of years ago.

You never made a solid case of that to me. Not by a long shot.

There was no such thing as a literal Adam and Eve and an alleged fall from grace. The idea is immoral. As if all people are morally to blame for what other humans did in the past?

If you wind up in Hell it will be for failing to repent of your sins and denying Christ as your Savior.
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

Should be banned. Has no business in the White House or any government agency. It basically means that the people who attend this meeting (and the list is frightening) take the Bible over the US constitution and the basic laws of the US.. and that is wrong.

actually they don't and the fact that you don't realize this means that you are wrong.
They are free to worship and attend church and hold bible study. I know that the militant athiests are seething to know that
someone opened a bible in the white house but it is 100% constitutional.
 
Re: Bible Studies at White House.

Yup, he is calling him a liar and I am calling him a liar too if he claims he converted/made 13 non-believing or other believing heads of state suddenly into Christians. And if he is not guilty of lying, he is guilty of the sin of pride ;) for boasting about such religious things.

But seriously, most people in Africa are either Christian already or Muslim. There are just three countries where neither Muslim or Christianity is the main religion. 21 African countries have 75% or more of their population who are Christians, 16 of them have populations of which at least 80% is Muslim. There are only 53 nations in Africa and 37 of them are already out of contention (most likely) as to have a leader who either converted or suddenly found Christianity where before he was either Muslim or non Christian.

Only in Madagascar, Mauritius, Togo, South Sudan, Benin and Sierra Leone is there a population where 30% or more are of traditional religions.

But even in South Sudan, 2/3 of people are either Christian or Muslim. In Benin that is also true, 2/3 are either Christian or Muslim.

In only 8 out of the 53 African countries the percentage of Christians and Muslims together is lower then 75%. In fact only in 3 countries is the percentage of Muslims and Christians less that 2/3's of the population. And those countries are Madagascar, Mauritius and Togo.

The boast of this man seems highly unlikely to be accurate. He may have helped them find christ in their hearts again, but "making them into Christians" sounds illogical/untrue.

i say so is not an argument if you have proof that he lied or is being deceptive please provide it.
otherwise you are simply stating your opinion which is well meaningless.

also it is nothing more than an ad hominem against someone vs and actual argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom