thehomer:

Oh. I've asked him more than once already and he's yet to answer. He cannot even say whether or not he agrees with my own answer. Not to talk about presenting his own answer. This is one of the reasons why I say he is just a terrible apologist.

And it is quite sad that he has the potential to become a great apologist.

He has the same ability with William Craig to bend logic to his favour without people noticing- that is how xtian sheep are kept in awe of William Craig.


Unfortunately his antics are too obvious nowadays.


He first asks you to explain born again- you do
You then define it- he ignores your definition
You then ask him twice to define it- he ignores defining it

mazaje:

It is still the same world with the same things if we are to agree with the story. . .same land, ame water, oceans etc. . .As you said, god cursed the land. . .The land before wasn't a supernatural land was it?. . .Remember you said that i was talking about a supernatural world that transcends natural phenomena such as chemistry. Was there no natural chemistry in the garden of eden?. . .How did the plants grow for example if not through natural chemistry?. . .A world without diseases doe not mean any suprnatural world. . .

If in a natural world as we have now, there are diseases, then surely a world where there are no diseases cannot be natural in the same sense.

Stubbornly, eh?. . .LOL!!




How did he help them?. . .Don't tell me that he helped them by providing doctors and their parents etc. . .What about those babies in rural african societies that don't have acess to doctors and came into this world already sick and in pains?. . .How did your god help those ones and in what ways, since basic drugs and doctors are not even there. . .As for the ones that have acess to doctors and drugs, how did your god help them as well?. . .

As I said you have set up shop to blame God which ever way this goes.
1. If He provides doctors, He didn't help them
2. If He ends the pain by allowing them to die, He didn't help them
3. If He heals them by allowing them to survive with no human help, It was coincidence and He still didn't help them.

What exactly should God do for you to consider it help?

i don't believe in any god as such i don't blame and can never blame any god for anything. . .I just wanted to counter your claim of god being responsible for people's lives and having a role in it. . .If god is credited for all the god things, then why do people run away and credit the devil or other things for the bad things?. . .

How do you even know that something is good or bad without presupposing a purpose? To make my point a bit clearer, let me use an analogous question:

How can you know your computer is working properly or that something will help or harm it without presupposing that your computer has a purpose?
Similarly how can you know that something will harm or help man without presupposing that man's existence has a purpose?

How does design plan presuppose anything?. . .I fail to see that. . .

too bad

I believe that every body is supposed to be rich, happy and healthy because every body deserves to be happy and lead a stable life as opposed to being sad, poor and sick. . .

Why? what did they do to deserve it?

Mr anony:
Ofcourse in thehomerverse

Mr anony:
Whatever this word salad is supposed to be, I know not. The only thing important to a claim is whether it is true or not.

Word salad? Which word or phrase did you find confusing? How do you determine whether or not a claim is true? How do you determine whether or not someone believes that they agree with something they've said they agree with?

Mr anony:
Besides, Chrstianity is not merely an internal assertion, it can be evidenced by outward works. This further shows your ignorance of what it means to be born again. If you are interested in educating yourself, study James chapter 2

What outward works can a Christian perform that cannot be performed by a non-Christian? This shows your ignorance of what reasonable evidence is.

Mr anony:
asked and answered here
https://www.nairaland.com/1310138/dear-atheist-feel-need-thankful/3#16050543

False. You did not answer it. In fact, this is what you said.

Mr anony:
Do I agree with the wikipedia article? I don't disagree but then I don't think that the wikipedia article demonstrates any depth of understanding of what it means to be born again which is what I require of you to show.

Not disagreeing doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with all that is in the article. If you agree, simply say so. You claimed that it was lacking in depth but you never did expatiate on what was lacking.

Mr anony:
Now what is missing? Let's see.
It tells us nothing about what you were born from and what you are born into,
It tells us nothing of salvation and why it is necessary,
It tells us nothing about the characteristics of one who is born again
It tells us nothing about why those who are born again will make heaven.
It tells us nothing about why those who reject Christ will go to hell
It tells us nothing about whether a person who is born again can lose his/her status
it tells us nothing about what a relationship with Christ entails.

If you cannot demonstrate that you have a good bible-based understanding of these things, then your claim to know what it means to be born-again is false

If you wanted those included in a long treatise, then simply answer your very own question including what you're looking for and I'll tell you whether or not I agree with it. Let me see you answer your own question.

Mr anony:
Saved from what?

From hell.

Mr anony:
I'm afraid you haven't answered anything.

I've answered all that is necessary. If you think I haven't, then you answer the question and let's see if you're actually right.

Mr anony:
your original question was about sickness in heaven. I answered here
https://www.nairaland.com/1310138/dear-atheist-feel-need-thankful/3#16044442

You claimed that there was no sickness in heaven by definition. There was no sickness on earth but there is sickness now. How do you know that the state in heaven hasn't changed?

I see you're trying to be evasive now by sending me on a wild goose chase. So far, you've not been able to answer your own questions that you've been posing. It looks like you don't know what it means to be born-again because if you did, there would be no need for such attempted evasions.

Mr anony:
Isn't it interesting that you lot like to ask questions but hate to justify them.

This coming from you has to be a compliment.

You ask me direct questions, I give you direct answers. You ask me poor questions, I give you appropriate answers from a reliable source.

I ask you direct questions, you avoid answering by being evasive.

Logicboy03:
And it is quite sad that he has the potential to become a great apologist.

I disagree that he could become a great apologist. He doesn't really have the necessary background knowledge in Christianity or philosophy.

Logicboy03:
He has the same ability with William Craig to bend logic to his favour without people noticing- that is how xtian sheep are kept in awe of William Craig.

Oh no. Craig is an entirely different class from Mr anony. Craig actually knows a lot of stuff. He is just mistaken on a certain conclusions and he is sometimes evasive but people often notice when he misuses certain lines of argument.

Logicboy03:
Unfortunately his antics are too obvious nowadays.


He first asks you to explain born again- you do
You then define it- he ignores your definition
You then ask him twice to define it- he ignores defining it

And he will continue running because he knows he'll get hammered whichever way he answers. He knows that the Wikipedia article is well written and well annotated with links to other articles addressing the new targets he's placed. He is now trying to shift the goal posts but what he doesn't seem to realize is that the further he shifts it, the more questions he himself will have to answer as evidence that he knows what he's talking about.

And he didn't answer the direct questions. I've become pretty good at this. I should probably start attaching probabilities of expecting a response to direct questions.

thehomer: And he didn't answer the direct questions. I've become pretty good at this. I should probably start attaching probabilities of expecting a response to direct questions.

Ah, Majaze/Plaetton are also good at hammering Anony in advance....

I cant remember which of them it was that predicted on another thread that Anony will ask a question rather than answer the question in the op. Like clockwork, Anony came and asked a similar question to the one they prophesied.....

Mr anony:
If in a natural world as we have now, there are diseases, then surely a world where there are no diseases cannot be natural in the same sense.

It is the same natural world. . .After all accroding to the story it is the same world was only that it was cursed. . .A world without dieases isn't a supernatural one. . .

As I said you have set up shop to blame God which ever way this goes.
1. If He provides doctors, He didn't help them
2. If He ends the pain by allowing them to die, He didn't help them
3. If He heals them by allowing them to survive with no human help, It was coincidence and He still didn't help them.

Provide doctors?. . .God does not provide doctors anywhere. . .Is taking their lives the only way to end pain?. . .I don't think babies born with dieases make it own their own without human help of any kind. . .

What exactly should God do for you to consider it help?

Heal them without human help. . .The way magically heals people in the bible for example. . .If a baby is born with some form of illness, all god needs to do is heal the child once the parents of the child pray for the child. . .No hospital, no doctors, nothing, the way the bible talks about it. . .Pray and the child will be healed instantly. . .That will be what i will consider as help. . .

How do you even know that something is good or bad without presupposing a purpose? To make my point a bit clearer, let me use an analogous question:

How can you know your computer is working properly or that something will help or harm it without presupposing that your computer has a purpose?
Similarly how can you know that something will harm or help man without presupposing that man's existence has a purpose?

Purpose is subjective, my computer;s main purpose might be for browsing, while that of my friend might be for data storage , another friend's computer's purpose might be for playing music. Man's existence is also subjective. For some it is to be happy and enjoy their stay here on earth. . .For others it is to worship their deities and for some its to achieve nirvanah. . .All purposes are subjective. . .

Why? what did they do to deserve it?

Must they do anything to deserve it?. . .

thehomer: Word salad? Which word or phrase did you find confusing? How do you determine whether or not a claim is true? How do you determine whether or not someone believes that they agree with something they've said they agree with?

Were you lying when you claimed to agree with wikipedia?

What outward works can a Christian perform that cannot be performed by a non-Christian? This shows your ignorance of what reasonable evidence is.

This is like saying what outward works can a democratic government do for it's people that an authoritarian government can't do? point being that Christianity is not merely internal and it is also not merely works

False. You did not answer it. In fact, this is what you said.

And that is not an answer for you?

Not disagreeing doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with all that is in the article. If you agree, simply say so. You claimed that it was lacking in depth but you never did expatiate on what was lacking.

The article does not show enough depth for me to claim full agreement. I have listed what is missing and that is the burden you'll have to meet to prove that you really understand what you are talking about

If you wanted those included in a long treatise, then simply answer your very own question including what you're looking for and I'll tell you whether or not I agree with it. Let me see you answer your own question.

What I have listed is what I am looking for. Don't shift your burden onto me. I won't do your work for you. If you can't answer biblically, I'll take it that you don't know what you are talking about

From hell.

lol.

I've answered all that is necessary. If you think I haven't, then you answer the question and let's see if you're actually right.

Still trying to shift the burden

You claimed that there was no sickness in heaven by definition. There was no sickness on earth but there is sickness now. How do you know that the state in heaven hasn't changed?

Strawman! I said that there is no sickness in heaven by definition. I never said that there is no sickness on earth by definition. Your question is moot.

I see you're trying to be evasive now by sending me on a wild goose chase. So far, you've not been able to answer your own questions that you've been posing. It looks like you don't know what it means to be born-again because if you did, there would be no need for such attempted evasions.

Lol, so after I have answered your questions, I should also answer mine. Lololol. I like how you try to evade questions by claiming that I am evading your questions. Now you have switched to accusing me of evading even my own questions. You are such a funny character.

As I said you are only frustrated that I am not chasing your red herrings. Now you are frustrated that I have refused to carry your burdens.

Logicboy03:


Ah, Majaze/Plaetton are also good at hammering Anony in advance....

I cant remember which of them it was that predicted on another thread that Anony will ask a question rather than answer the question in the op. Like clockwork, Anony came and asked a similar question to the one they prophesied.....

What? Someone was already predicting his behaviour? Why am I not surprised?

Mr anony:
Were you lying when you claimed to agree with wikipedia?

I wasn't claiming it, I was telling you that I did. Are you lying when you claim to believe in Christianity?

Mr anony:
This is like saying what outward works can a democratic government do for it's people that an authoritarian government can't do? point being that Christianity is not merely internal and it is also not merely works

It is nothing like that. Besides, an authoritarian government cannot allow the people to choose their leaders or they will no longer be authoritarian. And with that, you avoid yet another direct question. You're really going for a record here.

Mr anony:
And that is not an answer for you?

That is an answer but not to the question I asked. Which means you didn't answer the question I asked.

Mr anony:
The article does not show enough depth for me to claim full agreement. I have listed what is missing and that is the burden you'll have to meet to prove that you really understand what you are talking about

There are links on Wikipedia addressing them all but I think it is time for you to answer your own question as a sign of your own knowledge.

Mr anony:
What I have listed is what I am looking for. Don't shift your burden onto me. I won't do your work for you. If you can't answer biblically, I'll take it that you don't know what you are talking about

The burden has already been shifted to you once I answered with that link. You tried to avoid bearing your own burden by shifting the goal posts but that won't work. Since you feel that your addition is necessary and you didn't say so initially, then you now answer the question the way you see fit and then we can examine them to see whether or not you're right.

Mr anony:
lol.

Hey, that's what your Bible and your Jesus say.

Mr anony:
Still trying to shift the burden

Its already yours baby.

Mr anony:
Strawman! I said that there is no sickness in heaven by definition. I never said that there is no sickness on earth by definition. Your question is moot.

I never said there is no sickness on earth either so you're the one trying to make a strawman argument. So, answer the question. Still going for a record.

Mr anony:
Lol, so after I have answered your questions, I should also answer mine. Lololol. I like how you try to evade questions by claiming that I am evading your questions. Now you have switched to accusing me of evading even my own questions. You are such a funny character.

Oh but you are evading your own questions. Mr anony isn't the final arbiter of what "True Christianity" is so you do have to show that you know what you're talking about and so far, you're failing miserably.

Mr anony:
As I said you are only frustrated that I am not chasing your red herrings. Now you are frustrated that I have refused to carry your burdens.

But you're the one introducing red-herrings and avoiding direct questions. The burdens are already yours to meet since I met mine already.

Do you remember when you were making claims about what the pro-choice position was, if you go back and check, you'll notice that after you asked me for what they believed, you still had to say what you thought they believed after I had answered in order for us to be sure you knew what you were talking about. Now why this sudden double standard Mr anony?

I'm 97.5% sure that Mr anony will try to be evasive by
1. Not answering the questions he posed,
2. Not answering my question on the outward expressions of Christianity
3. Not actually addressing so-called the lack of depth of the Wikipedia entry on being born-again.

Funny...

mazaje:
It is the same natural world. . .After all accroding to the story it is the same world was only that it was cursed. . .A world without dieases isn't a supernatural one. . .

perhaps we should talk about what we mean by supernatural. Supernatural to us is something that transcends nature's laws as we know them. For instance in this world, people don't get raised from the dead. Someone getting raised from the dead would rightly be a supernatural event. A world where people did not die would not be a natural world but a supernatural one.
I'll however grant you that we use natural and supernatural as place holders and that's why we usually have confusion. For instance if everyone died and rose from the dead from tomorrow, we will immediately start calling it a natural thing. But from where we stand today, such a world is still supernatural. Get my drift?

Provide doctors?. . .God does not provide doctors anywhere. . .Is taking their lives the only way to end pain?. . .I don't think babies born with dieases make it own their own without human help of any kind. . .

interesting

Heal them without human help. . .The way magically heals people in the bible for example. . .If a baby is born with some form of illness, all god needs to do is heal the child once the parents of the child pray for the child. . .No hospital, no doctors, nothing, the way the bible talks about it. . .Pray and the child will be healed instantly. . .That will be what i will consider as help. . .

God is not a genie.

Purpose is subjective, my computer;s main purpose might be for browsing, while that of my friend might be for data storage , another friend's computer's purpose might be for playing music. Man's existence is also subjective. For some it is to be happy and enjoy their stay here on earth. . .For others it is to worship their deities and for some its to achieve nirvanah. . .All purposes are subjective. . .

The point still remains that you cannot talk about something being helpful or harmful to your computer without first granting that it has a purpose subject to the owner/designer of the computer.

Must they do anything to deserve it?. . .

What? Do you know what it means to deserve something? You might as well say that they deserve to be poor and diseased and they don't have to do anything to deserve that.

musKeeto: Funny...

you need to check out my signature

thehomer:

I wasn't claiming it, I was telling you that I did. Are you lying when you claim to believe in Christianity?



It is nothing like that. Besides, an authoritarian government cannot allow the people to choose their leaders or they will no longer be authoritarian. And with that, you avoid yet another direct question. You're really going for a record here.



That is an answer but not to the question I asked. Which means you didn't answer the question I asked.



There are links on Wikipedia addressing them all but I think it is time for you to answer your own question as a sign of your own knowledge.



The burden has already been shifted to you once I answered with that link. You tried to avoid bearing your own burden by shifting the goal posts but that won't work. Since you feel that your addition is necessary and you didn't say so initially, then you now answer the question the way you see fit and then we can examine them to see whether or not you're right.



Hey, that's what your Bible and your Jesus say.



Its already yours baby.



I never said there is no sickness on earth either so you're the one trying to make a strawman argument. So, answer the question. Still going for a record.



Oh but you are evading your own questions. Mr anony isn't the final arbiter of what "True Christianity" is so you do have to show that you know what you're talking about and so far, you're failing miserably.



But you're the one introducing red-herrings and avoiding direct questions. The burdens are already yours to meet since I met mine already.

Do you remember when you were making claims about what the pro-choice position was, if you go back and check, you'll notice that after you asked me for what they believed, you still had to say what you thought they believed after I had answered in order for us to be sure you knew what you were talking about. Now why this sudden double standard Mr anony?

I'm 97.5% sure that Mr anony will try to be evasive by
1. Not answering the questions he posed,
2. Not answering my question on the outward expressions of Christianity
3. Not actually addressing so-called the lack of depth of the Wikipedia entry on being born-again.

Yawn, no need to dance around. It is clear that you don't know what it means to be born again. feel free to keep evading the question by accusing me. You have not demonstrated any understanding of what it means to be born again. All you have done is link a wikipedia article and then when asked to expand beyond it you started dancing. Here is what your wikipedia article does not explain.

It tells us nothing about what you were born from and what you are born into,
It tells us nothing of salvation and why it is necessary,
It tells us nothing about the characteristics of one who is born again
It tells us nothing about why those who are born again will make heaven.
It tells us nothing about why those who reject Christ will go to hell
It tells us nothing about whether a person who is born again can lose his/her status
it tells us nothing about what a relationship with Christ entails.

Either you can explain it biblically or you can't.

It is really amusing how you claim someone is evading your question when you don't have any understanding of the question you are asking.

Mr anony:
Yawn, no need to dance around. It is clear that you don't know what it means to be born again. feel free to keep evading the question by accusing me. You have not demonstrated any understanding of what it means to be born again. All you have done is link a wikipedia article and then when asked to expand beyond it you started dancing. Here is what your wikipedia article does not explain.

It tells us nothing about what you were born from and what you are born into,
It tells us nothing of salvation and why it is necessary,
It tells us nothing about the characteristics of one who is born again
It tells us nothing about why those who are born again will make heaven.
It tells us nothing about why those who reject Christ will go to hell
It tells us nothing about whether a person who is born again can lose his/her status
it tells us nothing about what a relationship with Christ entails.

Either you can explain it biblically or you can't.

It is really amusing how you claim someone is evading your question when you don't have any understanding of the question you are asking.

The Wikipedia article is well written. You are just writing nonsense.


1) The wikipedia lists and explains the bible verses talking about being born again

The King James' Version uses the phrase born again three times. Two appear in chapter 3 of the Gospel of John. Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, a Pharisee described as "a ruler of the Jews", who says that, because of his miracles, Jesus is known "to be a teacher come from God". Jesus immediately replies: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."[Jn 3:3] [14] A few verses later the Gospel quotes Jesus as saying:
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. / The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.[Jn 3:7]
John's Gospel was written in Greek, and the Greek word translated as again is ανωΘεν (anothen), which could mean again, or from above. The New Revised Standard Version prefers this latter translation,[14] and both the King James Version and the Revised Version give it as an alternative in the margins. Hoskyns argues that it is to be preferred as the fundamental meaning and drew attention to phrases such as "birth of the Spirit (v.5)", "birth from God (cf. Jn 1:12-13; 1Jn 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:18)" but continues that this necessarily carries with it an emphasis upon the newness of the life as given by God himself.[15]
The third and last mention of the phrase occurs in the First Letter of Peter. The King James Bible translates this as:
Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently: / Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.[1 Peter 1:22-23]
Here, the Greek word translated as born again is αναγεγεννημενοι (anagegennemenoy)

2) The wikipedia article gives the different definitions/interpretations of "born again" from different denominations of christianit

a) The catholic definition (Which by the way, I know you are ignorant about because we have had a discussion about this- "who is a christian"


3)The wikidpedia article clearly gives a great general definition of "born again" which you can never give

In Christianity, to be born again is to undergo a "spiritual rebirth" (regeneration) of the human soul or spirit, contrasted with the physical birth everyone experiences. The origin of the term "born again" is the New Testament: "Jesus replied, 'Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.'"[Jn 3:3 NIV][1] It is a term associated with salvation in Christianity. Individuals who profess to be born again often state that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ

So, f4ck off. I dont know how The Homer tolerates your lies. What even pains me was that I even believed you at first that the wikipedia article was not sufficient for explaining born again.

Mr anony:
Yawn, no need to dance around. It is clear that you don't know what it means to be born again. feel free to keep evading the question by accusing me. You have not demonstrated any understanding of what it means to be born again. All you have done is link a wikipedia article and then when asked to expand beyond it you started dancing. Here is what your wikipedia article does not explain.

It tells us nothing about what you were born from and what you are born into,
It tells us nothing of salvation and why it is necessary,
It tells us nothing about the characteristics of one who is born again
It tells us nothing about why those who are born again will make heaven.
It tells us nothing about why those who reject Christ will go to hell
It tells us nothing about whether a person who is born again can lose his/her status
it tells us nothing about what a relationship with Christ entails.

Either you can explain it biblically or you can't.

It is really amusing how you claim someone is evading your question when you don't have any understanding of the question you are asking.

Yawn. No need to dance around and fail at it. It is clear that you don't know what it means to be born again. Try to avoid shifting your burden of proof by showing you know what it means to be born-again. Begin by answering your own questions any way you see fit while including your new goal posts. I've done my part already and can easily do more. There are other Wikipedia articles addressing the Christian concepts of atonement, salvation, fruits of the spirit etc but your ignorance of Christian ideas shows when you wonder about whether or not people can lose their status.

Either you can explain yourself biblically or you cannot.

It is amusing how you claim someone is ignorant when you don't have any understanding of the questions you were asking.

And your record for being evasive continues.
When you're ready to show that you even know the Christianity you claim to believe, just let me know. Your ignorance about the fate of children after their deaths has been noted so your reticence in laying out more ideas you claim to know is understandable but a tad embarrassing.

It looks like I'm quite good at predicting your tactics in your attempt at being evasive.

Logicboy03:


The Wikipedia article is well written. You are just writing nonsense.


1) The wikipedia lists and explains the bible verses talking about being born again






2) The wikipedia article gives the different definitions/interpretations of "born again" from different denominations of christianit

a) The catholic definition (Which by the way, I know you are ignorant about because we have had a discussion about this- "who is a christian"


3)The wikidpedia article clearly gives a great general definition of "born again" which you can never give




So, f4ck off. I dont know how The Homer tolerates your lies. What even pains me was that I even believed you at first that the wikipedia article was not sufficient for explaining born again.

yawn. I don't see how posting a wikipedia link shows that he has knowledge of anything. All I did was ask him further questions which if he knows his stuff, he should be able to answer easily instead he started trying to shift the burden to me. Beyond wikipedia, thehomer has really said nothing.

thehomer:

Yawn. No need to dance around and fail at it. It is clear that you don't know what it means to be born again. Try to avoid shifting your burden of proof by showing you know what it means to be born-again. Begin by answering your own questions any way you see fit while including your new goal posts. I've done my part already and can easily do more. There are other Wikipedia articles addressing the Christian concepts of atonement, salvation, fruits of the spirit etc but your ignorance of Christian ideas shows when you wonder about whether or not people can lose their status.

Either you can explain yourself biblically or you cannot.

It is amusing how you claim someone is ignorant when you don't have any understanding of the questions you were asking.

And your record for being evasive continues.
When you're ready to show that you even know the Christianity you claim to believe, just let me know. Your ignorance about the fate of children after their deaths has been noted so your reticence in laying out more ideas you claim to know is understandable but a tad embarrassing.

It looks like I'm quite good at predicting your tactics in your attempt at being evasive.

Yawn. I don't see how posting a wikipedia link shows that you have knowledge of anything. All I did was ask you further questions which if you know your stuff, you should be able to answer easily instead you started trying to shift the burden to me. Beyond linking wikipedia, you really said nothing.

Your failed tactics are so plain to see. keep on dancing. I see your main man logicboy has started playing his drum for you. You keep trying and failing at evading questions by calling me evasive. What a poor tactic.

Mr anony:
yawn. I don't see how posting a wikipedia link shows that he has knowledge of anything. All I did was ask him further questions which if he knows his stuff, he should be able to answer easily instead he started trying to shift the burden to me. Beyond wikipedia, thehomer has really said nothing.

What further questions? The wikipedia article is enough to know everything about being born again...so how could it be possible that The Homer wouldnt be able to answer your question


Keep in mind that TheHomer was a christian before (if I am not mistaken)

Logicboy03:
What further questions? The wikipedia article is enough to know everything about being born again...so how could it be possible that The Homer wouldnt be able to answer your question

Lolol interesting. this is what happens when you chat with village atheists. Wikipedia is the be all and end all of any subject brought up.

Keep in mind that TheHomer was a christian before (if I am not mistaken)

Lol really, was he now?

Mr anony:

Yawn. I don't see how posting a wikipedia link shows that you have knowledge of anything. All I did was ask you further questions which if you know your stuff, you should be able to answer easily instead you started trying to shift the burden to me. Beyond linking wikipedia, you really said nothing.

The Wikipedia article shows what I agree with. I cannot upload the information in my brain to you, neither do I see the need to type out entire articles when the work has already been done. Remember that if I gave you a concise summary, you'll start whining. Hell you were whining when I gave you an entire article. I have easily answered your questions but for some reason, you're unable to answer them yourself and that leads me to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.

Mr anony:
Your failed tactics are so plain to see. keep on dancing. I see your main man logicboy has started playing his drum for you. You keep trying and failing at evading questions by calling me evasive. What a poor tactic.

I'm being evasive by directly answering your questions? If that is what it means to be evasive, then please answer the direct questions I posed and answer your own question about knowledge to the degree you see fit.

You are being evasive. The evidence lies in the fact that you're unable to answer the simple questions both mine and yours. Yet another reason why you're a bad apologist.

Hey Logicboy03 is an independent attacker. If you're sad about being bruised from his comments, simply tell him. I'm sure he'll consider your statement.

Mr anony:
perhaps we should talk about what we mean by supernatural. Supernatural to us is something that transcends nature's laws as we know them. For instance in this world, people don't get raised from the dead. Someone getting raised from the dead would rightly be a supernatural event. A world where people did not die would not be a natural world but a supernatural one.
I'll however grant you that we use natural and supernatural as place holders and that's why we usually have confusion. For instance if everyone died and rose from the dead from tomorrow, we will immediately start calling it a natural thing. But from where we stand today, such a world is still supernatural. Get my drift?

I get your drift. . .

God is not a genie.

But god as presented in the bible is a genie, he magically heals people and raises them from the dead in some cases. . .

The point still remains that you cannot talk about something being helpful or harmful to your computer without first granting that it has a purpose subject to the owner/designer of the computer.

OK. . .I get. . .

What? Do you know what it means to deserve something? You might as well say that they deserve to be poor and diseased and they don't have to do anything to deserve that.

LOL. . .Why should they deserve to be poor?. . .Again i ask must they do anything to deserve a good life, why not have a good life because its good to have a good life as opposed to havibg a bad life?

Mr anony:
Lolol interesting. this is what happens when you chat with village atheists. Wikipedia is the be all and end all of any subject brought up.

Are you sad about that?

Mr anony:
Lol really, was he now?

Yes I was. But unlike you, I actually took the time to probe what I was supposed to believe. That is why I'm able to recognize accurate information from Wikipedia but you're unable to recognize it so you try to evade rather than answer the direct questions.

thehomer:

The Wikipedia article shows what I agree with. I cannot upload the information in my brain to you, neither do I see the need to type out entire articles when the work has already been done. Remember that if I gave you a concise summary, you'll start whining. Hell you were whining when I gave you an entire article. I have easily answered your questions but for some reason, you're unable to answer them yourself and that leads me to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.



I'm being evasive by directly answering your questions? If that is what it means to be evasive, then please answer the direct questions I posed and answer your own question about knowledge to the degree you see fit.

You are being evasive. The evidence lies in the fact that you're unable to answer the simple questions both mine and yours. Yet another reason why you're a bad apologist.

Hey Logicboy03 is an independent attacker. If you're sad about being bruised from his comments, simply tell him. I'm sure he'll consider your statement.

All I asked was that you expand on your "concise statement" That's the only way you can prove that you know what you are talking about. merely pasting a link and saying that you agree with it doesn't prove that you have any knowledge especially when the article barely scratches the surface.

Since you claim you know what it means to be born again, my demands should be very easy for you to meet. Why you keep dancing amuses me.

So once again here they are:

Explain using bible references:
what one is born from and what he/she is born into.
what salvation is and why it is necessary
why those who are born again will make heaven while those who reject Christ will go to hell,
whether or not a person who is born again can lose the status of being born again
what exactly does a relationship with Christ entail.

The above will demonstrate to me that you actually know what it means to be born again. Since you also claim to have once been born again, these should be all the more easier for you.

I'll predict that 99% probability that you will not tackle the above but will try to shift the burden to me.

thehomer: Are you sad about that?

Nah just amused

Yes I was. But unlike you, I actually took the time to probe what I was supposed to believe. That is why I'm able to recognize accurate information from Wikipedia but you're unable to recognize it so you try to evade rather than answer the direct questions.

If you once were born again as you claim, then my demands should be really easy for you to meet.

So once again here they are:

Explain using bible references:
what one is born from and what he/she is born into.
what salvation is and why it is necessary
why those who are born again will make heaven while those who reject Christ will go to hell,
whether or not a person who is born again can lose the status of being born again
what exactly does a relationship with Christ entail.

Prove to us that you are not merely posting a link but that you really know what you are talking about.

Mr anony:
Lolol interesting. this is what happens when you chat with village atheists.

Mr anony:
All I asked was that you expand on your "concise statement" That's the only way you can prove that you know what you are talking about. merely pasting a link and saying that you agree with it doesn't prove that you have any knowledge especially when the article barely scratches the surface.

Since you claim you know what it means to be born again, my demands should be very easy for you to meet. Why you keep dancing amuses me.

So once again here they are:

Explain using bible references:
what one is born from and what he/she is born into.
what salvation is and why it is necessary
why those who are born again will make heaven while those who reject Christ will go to hell,
whether or not a person who is born again can lose the status of being born again
what exactly does a relationship with Christ entail.

The above will demonstrate to me that you actually know what it means to be born again. Since you also claim to have once been born again, these should be all the more easier for you.

I'll predict that 99% probability that you will not tackle the above but will try to shift the burden to me.

Everyone reading this thread can see that you are a tool. A dubious tool.


Seriously, being born again is not a sceintific theory or deeply philosophical issue. It is simply having a spiritual rebirth in which you become a true follower of christ.

The above definition is a very general one that can be agreed with by most christains. Other than that, it becomes a denominational difference in doctrine. For instance a catholic born again is simply one who is abptised and confirmed as a full catholic and lives a holy life- which you yourself are ignorant about.

So, asking someone to define born again with all those questions there is nothing short of nonsense.

Mr anony:
All I asked was that you expand on your "concise statement" That's the only way you can prove that you know what you are talking about. merely pasting a link and saying that you agree with it doesn't prove that you have any knowledge especially when the article barely scratches the surface.

Since you claim you know what it means to be born again, my demands should be very easy for you to meet. Why you keep dancing amuses me.

So once again here they are:

Explain using bible references:
what one is born from and what he/she is born into.
what salvation is and why it is necessary
why those who are born again will make heaven while those who reject Christ will go to hell,
whether or not a person who is born again can lose the status of being born again
what exactly does a relationship with Christ entail.

The above will demonstrate to me that you actually know what it means to be born again. Since you also claim to have once been born again, these should be all the more easier for you.

I'll predict that 99% probability that you will not tackle the above but will try to shift the burden to me.

The article expands on what it means to be born-again. With references from the Bible too so I have actually answered your direct question. You then decided to shift the goalposts into questions about atonement, fruits of the spirit, doctrinal issues on Calvinism and what not. If I presented you with articles addressing Christian beliefs on those issues, will you finally answer your question?

Rather than you shifting the goal posts, present your own answer, concise or verbose to your initial question on the meaning of being born-again. When you've done that, then we can assess whether or not you know what you're talking about. Shifting the goalposts is a poor tactic you know.

The burden shifted to you once I answered the question so your prediction is not needed since I have already answered the question. Since you feel unsatisfied with it, present the answer you'll be satisfied with for analysis.

And your record for evasions keeps on climbing.

Probability of 98.78% of Mr anony not answering his own questions in the next response.

Mr anony: Nah just amused




If you once were born again as you claim, then my demands should be really easy for you to meet.

So once again here they are:

Explain using bible references:
what one is born from and what he/she is born into.
what salvation is and why it is necessary
why those who are born again will make heaven while those who reject Christ will go to hell,
whether or not a person who is born again can lose the status of being born again
what exactly does a relationship with Christ entail.

Prove to us that you are not merely posting a link but that you really know what you are talking about.

Met and surpassed. It is up to you to show whether or not you're up to scratch.

mazaje:

I get your drift. . .

OK. . .I get. . .

Ok cool

But God as presented in the bible is a genie, he magically heals people and raises them from the dead in some cases. . .

No He is not. A genie is a tool. It has no will, no purpose, nothing. You just pull it out and make your wish. God in the bible is the ultimate creator having a grand plan and a purpose for His creations which we are. Prayer is not an act ordering God rather it is one of humility and relationship with a divine person and because prayer is relationship based, the approach to testing it's efficacy can't be empirical in much the same way that you won't be successful if you chose to empirically test if your wife loves you. For this reason, you cannot define for God how and when he ought to answer prayers.

LOL. . .Why should they deserve to be poor?. . .Again i ask must they do anything to deserve a good life, why not have a good life because its good to have a good life as opposed to havibg a bad life?

Since you are arguing that they don't have to do anything to deserve a life of health and wealth, I can just as easily argue that they don't have to do anything to deserve a life of poverty and sickness.

Logicboy03:


Everyone reading this thread can see that you are a tool. A dubious tool.


Seriously, being born again is not a sceintific theory or deeply philosophical issue. It is simply having a spiritual rebirth in which you become a true follower of christ.

The above definition is a very general one that can be agreed with by most christains. Other than that, it becomes a denominational difference in doctrine. For instance a catholic born again is simply one who is abptised and confirmed as a full catholic and lives a holy life- which you yourself are ignorant about.

So, asking someone to define born again with all those questions there is nothing short of nonsense.

Oh I'm sure he realizes this but will try to shift again to something else. But hey, I've got Wikipedia and Christian theology backing me up with references from the Bible but Mr anony will not show his own answer whether a summary or a fully detailed response.

What he doesn't realize is that I recognize poor tactics like shifting the goalposts.