Bible Studies at White House. [W:154]

[ludin]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

I am talking about the 13 heads of state, and there is no possibility to lead a christian to christ, he is already "led" to this imaginary figure (at least for which no evidence of existence exists).

yet history says you are wrong amazing isn't it.

 

[ludin]

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.

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?

first off plato is human therefore he can't disprove a perfect being next being imperfect means that plato cannot be objective. God being perfect can be objective.
Not immoral at all. The fact is that sin entered the world and everything else was infected by it.

think of it more like a virus and the anti-biotic is the blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[Wisdom]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

first off plato is human therefore he can't disprove a perfect being next being imperfect means that plato cannot be objective. God being perfect can be objective.
Not immoral at all. The fact is that sin entered the world and everything else was infected by it.

think of it more like a virus and the anti-biotic is the blood of Jesus Christ.

First off, you are merely assuming that God even exists. There is no credible evidence of any kind for the existence of God. Secondly, even if you had such evidence, you have no evidence that God has any concerns about morality. Third, even if you could establish the existence of a God and that it had moral concerns, you have absolutely no valid argument that your alleged God's alleged moral opinions would be objective in any way.

Secondly, it does not logically follow that simply because Plato is a man that his proof for God not being a source of objective morality is false. In fact, you have committed a well-known fallacy in attacking the person as opposed to the person's argument.

Thirdly, Christian morality is most definitely immoral. The idea of a new-born being responsible for something called original sin is so immoral that if the USA tried to pass a similar law, like holding children responsible for the crimes of their parents, the law would be stricken from the statute books for being unconstitutional.

 

[Wisdom]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

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



If you wind up in Hell it will be for failing to repent of your sins and denying Christ as your Savior.

You have already shown that you lack basic logical-thinking skills, so it is irrelevant whether you are smart enough to follow the argument. I did debunk thoroughly your assertion that your imaginary friend is an objective source of morality.

I'm not concerned about hell, because it is a fairy tale. The fact you believe in a God that would send innocent people to a hell to be tortured for all eternity, however, does demonstrate quite clearly that you are immoral and if your God did exist, as Thomas Paine stated long ago, it would be a demon to be despised, not a God worthy of worship.

 

[Peter King]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

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.

It is not me who needs to provide evidence, it is him, he makes the claims and I say it is so illogical that he converted 13 into Christianity. That is how simple it is. He makes wild claims that do not sound believable so I am going to call him a liar. I cannot prove he is a liar because I cannot prove he is a liar because he does not give us any evidence that he did what he claimed to do.

 

[Peter King]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

yet history says you are wrong amazing isn't it.

what history would that be?

 

[ludin]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

First off, you are merely assuming that God even exists. There is no credible evidence of any kind for the existence of God. Secondly, even if you had such evidence, you have no evidence that God has any concerns about morality. Third, even if you could establish the existence of a God and that it had moral concerns, you have absolutely no valid argument that your alleged God's alleged moral opinions would be objective in any way.

You have no credible evidence that there isn't. so now that we have that out of the way we can continue. Even if you exclude the God of the bible through out history gods have meddled in morality and humanity. This spans from day to day.
The God of the bible very much is concerned with morality. as it is an aspect of his nature. He is perfect therefore he is objective. That is what perfect means.

Secondly, it does not logically follow that simply because Plato is a man that his proof for God not being a source of objective morality is false. In fact, you have committed a well-known fallacy in attacking the person as opposed to the person's argument.

Plato does not have the authority to even begin to prove his claim. any proof would be subjective from plato's view as a human that in and of itself invalidates it.
not i haven't committed any fallacy at all i am not attacking plato i am establishing that he has no standing to begin with to say whether a perfect being is objective or not from an imperfect view point.

Thirdly, Christian morality is most definitely immoral. The idea of a new-born being responsible for something called original sin is so immoral that if the USA tried to pass a similar law, like holding children responsible for the crimes of their parents, the law would be stricken from the statute books for being unconstitutional.

They are not responsible for original sin that is a false accusation. they are inherently born with it. it is a trait that eventually manifests itself. This why the bible speaks of the age of accountability.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

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



If you wind up in Hell it will be for failing to repent of your sins and denying Christ as your Savior.

Do you believe that Adam and Eve actually existed? A yes or no will suffice.

 

[ludin]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

what history would that be?

All of the historical documented evidence that Christ existed that has been posted on here numerous times.

 

[Peter King]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

All of the historical documented evidence that Christ existed that has been posted on here numerous times.

Yeah, if you want to believe that, fine with me. But there is no empirical evidence that there ever was a son of god, hell they cannot even prove there is a god. Maybe there was a person named jesus, that is possible but that is not evidence of a super being's son being on earth.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

You have already shown that you lack basic logical-thinking skills, so it is irrelevant whether you are smart enough to follow the argument. I did debunk thoroughly your assertion that your imaginary friend is an objective source of morality.

I'm not concerned about hell, because it is a fairy tale. The fact you believe in a God that would send innocent people to a hell to be tortured for all eternity, however, does demonstrate quite clearly that you are immoral and if your God did exist, as Thomas Paine stated long ago, it would be a demon to be despised, not a God worthy of worship.

You don't know the Bible and you haven't done your homework on it.

 

[Peter King]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

View attachment 67221152

You don't know the Bible and you haven't done your homework on it.

That is right, sometimes we might quote verses (not here of course but there are people who are convinced that the only nutty things written in a holy book are in the Muslim holy book) but overall I do not read the bible nor would I want to. I have only listened to sermons at royal funerals so I am not going to claim to know the bible, nor would I want too (as an atheist). So I cannot interpret the bible but when I hear Christians sometimes explain the bible I doubt they know the meaning of it either.

 

[PeteEU]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

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.

Who cares if it is 100% constitutional.. it is still a bunch of religious nutjobs that prioritize the bible over common sense.

 

[year2late]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

I'm atheist (always have been, and always rejected anything supernatural) and very much enjoy Bible study. Lot of good lessons to learn, a lot of morals, ethics, values and traditions to explore.

I very much doubt a Senator converted 13 African heads of state. I'm sure we'll find they were Christian before meeting him. Got a list?

The list would be interesting.

 

[ludin]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

Who cares if it is 100% constitutional.. it is still a bunch of religious nutjobs that prioritize the bible over common sense.

your opinion is your opinion you said it was against the constitution which you evidently don't know the US constitution that well. The first amendment garenttee's the right
of freedom of religion. Meaning people in the US can hold bible studies. even if they are senators, or house members or judicial.

what the constitution prevents is the government establishing a religion or interfering in the practice of said religion.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

View attachment 67221152

You don't know the Bible and you haven't done your homework on it.

Do you believe that Adam and Eve actually existed? A yes or no will suffice.

 

[Wisdom]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

View attachment 67221152

You don't know the Bible and you haven't done your homework on it.

I know the Bible, but here is your problem relying on the Bible to try to convince me of the supernatural: You are engaged with circular reasoning. God exists. Why do you say that? Because the Bible says God exists. How do you know the Bible is reliable? Because it's the word of God. That's circular reasoning and not convincing to us rational non-believers. In fact, your argument is based on a well-known fallacy called question begging --- you are assuming the existence of God, the very thing that's at issue.

 

[Wisdom]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

You have no credible evidence that there isn't. so now that we have that out of the way we can continue. Even if you exclude the God of the bible through out history gods have meddled in morality and humanity. This spans from day to day.
The God of the bible very much is concerned with morality. as it is an aspect of his nature. He is perfect therefore he is objective. That is what perfect means.



Plato does not have the authority to even begin to prove his claim. any proof would be subjective from plato's view as a human that in and of itself invalidates it.
not i haven't committed any fallacy at all i am not attacking plato i am establishing that he has no standing to begin with to say whether a perfect being is objective or not from an imperfect view point.



They are not responsible for original sin that is a false accusation. they are inherently born with it. it is a trait that eventually manifests itself. This why the bible speaks of the age of accountability.

Actually I do have a great deal of credible evidence that your God does not exist. I've already proven that your God can't exist, as it is a logical contradiction for an all-powerful and all-knowing being to exist. Moreover, we have the problem of evil, which is also inconsistent with your God. There is also no evidence for the existence of Jesus as an actual person, and that is check-mate. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of him not having existed.

Also, look at what we should see if God existed, compared to what we actually see. If God exists, then there is no reason why we should not have physical evidence for his existence; yet, in all of science, we have absolutely nothing. If God exists, then we should expect all religious revelations to be the same. What do we actually see? A great divergence of opinions on these so-called revelations.

When you try to justify your immoral Christian belief system by claiming that people are not responsible for original sin, but born with it, that gets you no where. The fact is Christianity is immoral, evil to the core, because it falsely states that every new-born is somehow responsible for a murder of an alleged person who most likely never even existed, and which allegedly occurred thousands of years earlier. It is immoral to hold any person responsible for acts that took place long ago and for which they had nothing to do with.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

I know the Bible, but here is your problem relying on the Bible to try to convince me of the supernatural: You are engaged with circular reasoning. God exists. Why do you say that? Because the Bible says God exists. How do you know the Bible is reliable? Because it's the word of God. That's circular reasoning and not convincing to us rational non-believers. In fact, your argument is based on a well-known fallacy called question begging --- you are assuming the existence of God, the very thing that's at issue.

That's the novices' argument about that. The argument from Godly wisdom is that fulfilled Messianic prophecies, at a rate far, far greater than chance, are the signature of God.

Here's an article so you can get up to speed on that: Science Speaks by Peter W. Stoner, Chapter 3, The Christ of Prophecy

The other great evidence is the close, experiential, personal relationship believers have with the supernatural Holy Spirit. You don't know him and I doubt you've done your due-diligence on him.

Here's some of what the Holy Spirit does in the life of a believer: https://righterreport.com/2007/10/21/who-is-the-holy-spirit-and-what-does-he-do/

Evidences for God. Recommend you do study up on those.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

The fact is Christianity is immoral, evil to the core, because it falsely states that every new-born is somehow responsible for a murder of an alleged person who most likely never even existed, and which allegedly occurred thousands of years earlier. It is immoral to hold any person responsible for acts that took place long ago and for which they had nothing to do with.

That's hogwash.

And next time you're down and out, try finding a BITTER ATHEIST'S HOMELESS SHELTER.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

That's the novices' argument about that. The argument from Godly wisdom is that fulfilled Messianic prophecies, at a rate far, far greater than chance, are the signature of God.

Here's an article so you can get up to speed on that: Science Speaks by Peter W. Stoner, Chapter 3, The Christ of Prophecy

The other great evidence is the close, experiential, personal relationship believers have with the supernatural Holy Spirit. You don't know him and I doubt you've done your due-diligence on him.

Here's some of what the Holy Spirit does in the life of a believer: https://righterreport.com/2007/10/21/who-is-the-holy-spirit-and-what-does-he-do/

Evidences for God. Recommend you do study up on those.

Do you believe that Adam and Eve actually existed? A yes or no will suffice.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

Do you believe that Adam and Eve actually existed? A yes or no will suffice.

Why don't you submit it to prayer?

 

[Wisdom]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

That's the novices' argument about that. The argument from Godly wisdom is that fulfilled Messianic prophecies, at a rate far, far greater than chance, are the signature of God.

Here's an article so you can get up to speed on that: Science Speaks by Peter W. Stoner, Chapter 3, The Christ of Prophecy

The other great evidence is the close, experiential, personal relationship believers have with the supernatural Holy Spirit. You don't know him and I doubt you've done your due-diligence on him.

Here's some of what the Holy Spirit does in the life of a believer: https://righterreport.com/2007/10/21/who-is-the-holy-spirit-and-what-does-he-do/

Evidences for God. Recommend you do study up on those.

Nothing was fulfilled. The fact is Christianity is bull****. The Christians came along and completely misinterpreted all of Hebrew Scripture, so it's actually you who is ignorant of the Bible. But, we don't even need to focus on such arguments to expose your beliefs for being completely irrational and immoral. There is a reason Christians killed non-believers and denied non-believers equal political rights, throughout the vast majority of Christian history ---- because Christianity is fascism.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

That's hogwash.

And next time you're down and out, try finding a BITTER ATHEIST'S HOMELESS SHELTER.

We bow to your knowledge of hogwash. You are an expert practitioner.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Bible Studies at White House.

Stoner starts by assuming that all events in the NT really happened. One could apply his methods to the Silmarillion and the Lord Of The Rings and obtain the same result.