kgm78

I'm a guy. Of course I'm gonna run to the toy section and duel my friend with display lightsabers at Walmart.

@Charlie601611 @DeiGratia64 Looking back through the thread it seems there's some hostility that I did not consider. We both serve Christ and work to further His kingdom. Our traditions are different, but our goals are the same. I hope we agree on that!

@Charlie601611 @DeiGratia64 I would note that of all the translations you provided, the NIV is the only one that uses the term "foundation." All this passage is saying is that the church stands for and defends truth. This does not answer the question on whether scripture or the church has greater authority.

Couldn’t help but notice scripture wasn’t used to refute the claim.

@Charlie601611 @DeiGratia64 Specifically, Paul refers to that which is instructed by him and the other apostles either by "word of mouth or by letter." That would include anything that him, or the apostles wrote afterward. Since the apostles are no longer around today, all we have is their writings.

@kgm780 @DeiGratia64 The foundation is Jesus, which is the word of God, that still differs from it outright being the Bible. And I believe we can assume such, because the gospels weren’t even written yet when Paul wrote those letters. Why would he be referring to books not even written yet?

@Charlie601611 @DeiGratia64 The church is a pillar for truth, but the Word is the foundation of it. A pillar cannot stand without a firm foundation, and that's what the Word is. Paul says He is writing to Timothy so that Timothy's church can be a pillar of truth, that means Timothy needed Paul's letter.

@DeiGratia64 And if you want Paul himself, here’s him saying it’s not just in scripture. Also RSV.

@_OKJ__ @krussi34 In Paul's own words, according to his letter to Corinth: "and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also." (1 Corinthians 15:8)

@krussi34 Paul didn’t see the risen Jesus .. the risen Jesus ascended to heaven 40 days after his alleged resurrection

Why didn’t jesus appear to pontius Pilate and Caiaphas after his resurrection tho? If Jesus Christ truly rose from the dead and remained for 40 days, the most decisive way to confirm this would have been to appear to the very authorities who condemned him….namely Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas. These were the individuals with both the motive to verify the claim and the power to publicly document and disseminate it. Instead, the resurrection appearances were very suspiciously reported exclusively among his own followers…people already predisposed to believe in him. This is a serious evidential asymmetry… the claim rests on insider testimony, while those in the best position to critically verify or falsify it are absent from the record. If the goal of the resurrection was to provide clear, public confirmation of his divine status, then failing to appear to neutral or hostile authorities is very dubious and suspicious. Think about it, A verified appearance before Roman and Jewish leadership would have produced independent records and dramatically altered the history of the day. The absence of such accounts makes the resurrection narrative look less like a publicly confirmable event and more like a belief dubiously sustained within a committed group… any rational mind is justified in disbelieving the story.

日本では禁止されていますが、アメリカでは場所によっては「赤信号でも安全が確認できれば右折してよい」というルールがあります。そんなルールを知らない状態で、初めてアメリカを訪れた際にほとんどの車が赤信号でも右折しているのを見て「これが自由の国アメリカか〜」と感じたのを覚えています。

@z8000783 @Truth__Tree @JW_Lumley Early people were interested in survival, not truth-seeking. We have no reason to think our minds are rational beings capable of discerning truth, but only that which optimizes survival. Unless we have faith that God gave us minds to think rationally with.

@kgm780 @Truth__Tree @JW_Lumley Early people did not worry about that. They simply reacted with the environment and the people around them. We pretty much do the same thing now.

@bmasterblake @doctor_4ster @JW_Lumley This video will explain it better than I could. A basic example might be how we tend to fear the dark, even in our own homes. From a survival perspective, we want to avoid predators that lurk in the dark. From a truth perspective, we're perfectly safe. youtube.com/watch?v=d3BmkF…

@kgm780 @doctor_4ster @JW_Lumley Could you provide an example? I'm not an athiest but I still don't "know" what you mean 😅

@z8000783 @Truth__Tree @JW_Lumley You can't reliably know that the people you're communicating with are real unless you innately trust your own senses, which we all do. The point is that it's circular unless you include a God who gave us minds and senses to reliably seek truth.

@kgm780 @Truth__Tree @JW_Lumley That's how language first developed. Noises that mean something by linking a sound to an object.

@z8000783 @Truth__Tree @JW_Lumley How do you reliably identify what these other people think? We would need to rely on our own senses in the first place to be able to establish a majority opinion with other people. In order for this, we would need to trust our own senses, which is circular.

@kgm780 @Truth__Tree @JW_Lumley By including as many other people as possible.

@doctor_4ster @JW_Lumley Additionally, to rely on our own mind and senses to determine truth would be circular. We have no reason to believe our senses and mind can accurately discern what's real, so we can't actually trust them. That is, unless God gave us these senses for the purpose discerning truth.

@doctor_4ster @JW_Lumley On atheism, we have evolved to optimize for survivability, not truth-seeking. We would have no way to actually know what we consider to be "true" is actually true, rather than something that is false, but we have evolved to believe as "true" for evolutionary purposes. (1/2)

@z8000783 @Truth__Tree @JW_Lumley And how would you verify something without relying on your own mind and senses?

@Truth__Tree @JW_Lumley Trusting our senses is the last thing we should do. That is where scepticism comes in and we verify everything.

The Bible is entirely silent on the age of the earth, and the authors couldn’t’ve care less about it. Genesis 1 was never meant to be a scientific recollection of creation.

@TheCupitals @therunningdeath @HatMcGlasses @TeamTalaricoHQ @jamestalarico Bro lost the argument and then blocked me. To his Ephesians 6 quote, he left out verse 9: "And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him."

@TheCupitals @therunningdeath @HatMcGlasses @TeamTalaricoHQ @jamestalarico God determines what is degrading based on His commandments. Also, nowhere in the Bible does it say slavery or rape is good. In any case, you're severely illiterate readings of the Bible doesn't change the fact that you don't have an objective basis for right and wrong.

.@JamesTalarico: For 50 years, the religious right convinced our fellow Christians that the most important issues were abortion and gay marriage—two issues that aren't mentioned in the Bible. Jesus tells us exactly how we're going to be judged: by feeding the hungry, by healing the sick, and by welcoming the stranger. Don’t tell me what you believe. Show me how you treat other people, and I’ll tell you what you believe. Jesus gave us two commandments: love God and love neighbor. There was no exception to that second commandment regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or religious affiliation.

@TheCupitals @therunningdeath @HatMcGlasses @TeamTalaricoHQ @jamestalarico I can define objective moral truths, all you have is a flimsy and fluid "consensus." Slavery is wrong because man is made in the image of God, who says to "love your neighbor as yourself." Anything that degrades that which is made in the image of God is a great moral offense.

@kgm780 @therunningdeath @HatMcGlasses @TeamTalaricoHQ @jamestalarico "Theism wins because the subjective whim of my god never changes even though he thought slavery and rape was cool as long as the israelites won a war and all the people who could communicate with him died 2000 years ago and didn't know the Earth went around the Sun"

@TheCupitals @therunningdeath @HatMcGlasses @TeamTalaricoHQ @jamestalarico So you realize your process for determining objective moral truths is subjective and merely based on mass appeal, which is fluid. Therefor, you can't actually make claims about objective moral truths - only temporal preferences. That is why theism wins at objective morality.

@kgm780 @therunningdeath @HatMcGlasses @TeamTalaricoHQ @jamestalarico I'm getting tired of this waffling on when you can't explain why your god still explicitly condones slavery while a better-educated society left it behind. You're just dragging this into a sewage of words that don't mean or imply what you think they mean.

@TheCupitals @therunningdeath @HatMcGlasses @TeamTalaricoHQ @jamestalarico If it's determined in such a way, then it's not really objective. If the masses change their mind, then so do moral truths. For example, slavery has been well supported throughout human history. Were our ancestors correct since in their societies, slavery was widely accepted?

@kgm780 @therunningdeath @HatMcGlasses @TeamTalaricoHQ @jamestalarico No I'm not. Court trials are a subjective process that produces objective judgments based on a jury, not a judge. A judge just makes sure the trial is fair. Humans decided as a collective jury that slavery is objectively wrong through compelling moral arguments.

@TheCupitals @therunningdeath @HatMcGlasses @TeamTalaricoHQ @jamestalarico Now you're conflating the application of the justice system to objective moral truths. If it's something like a judge who gets to decide, then who's the proper person to judge on moral truths? If it's a jury, then do the masses get to determine moral truths?

@kgm780 @therunningdeath @HatMcGlasses @TeamTalaricoHQ @jamestalarico Oh stop it. Courts are a perfect example of why you're wrong. Courts hear a variety of conflicting and subjective testimony and conclude objective judgments. It's the same thing.