DoctorAlien's Posts

Nairaland Forum › DoctorAlien's Profile › DoctorAlien's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 (of 137 pages)

Christianity Etc › Re: 90 Atheist Quotes Every Christian & Atheist Need To Read by DoctorAlien(op): 10:06am On Oct 09, 2017

7. Atheism remains a minority worldview.

It would seem that claims of God’s death have been proven to be somewhat premature, as Wilson diagnoses: “Naturalistic atheism remains the orthodox worldview of Western intellectual culture, despite the fact that its advocates constitute ‘a tiny minority of the world’s population”.

8. Evil’s existence is not incompatible with the existence of an all-powerful God.

Philosopher William Rowe is responsible for the concept of the “friendly atheist” which is an atheist who accepts that some theists are justified in believing in God even if it is the case that God doesn’t exist. Rowe argues:

“Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God [who is all-powerful and all-good]. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim. Indeed… there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God”.

9. Belief in God is still very much alive.

Michel Onfray in his book In Defense of Atheism writes that: “Never more than today has there been such evidence of vitality in… the return to religious thinking, proof that God is not dead but that he was merely and briefly dozing… The trend has escalated to such an extent that we are now obliged to take up old defensive positions”.

Likewise founder of founder of The Skeptics Society Michael Shermer explains that:

“At the beginning of the twentieth century social scientists predicted that belief in God would decrease by the end of the century because of the secularization of society. In fact… the opposite has occurred… Not only is God not dead, as Nietzsche proclaimed, but he has never been more alive”.

Gavin Hyman, in Atheism in Modern History, similarly believes that “although modernity has undoubtedly witnessed a turn from tradition-based religious commitment, this has not resulted in the widespread atheism that many had previously predicted.” Hyman also notes dissatisfaction many people have with atheism’s prospects:

“In fact, outright atheism remains a minority confession, and the modern Western world has witnessed the proliferation of alternative ‘spiritualities’ of various kinds,” and a major reason for this is that

“MANY, IT SEEMS, ARE DISSATISFIED WITH ATHEISM AS THE ‘FINAL TRUTH’ OF THE HUMAN CONDITION”

1 Like 1 Share

Christianity Etc › Re: 90 Atheist Quotes Every Christian & Atheist Need To Read by DoctorAlien(op): 9:37am On Oct 09, 2017

5. Objective moral values do not exist on atheism.

This is quite significant as if this logic follows then it would not be possible to make objective moral claims; morality becomes relative. In other words, that one atheist thinks beating elderly people is a good thing because it provides him with entertainment such an act cannot be deemed to be objectively wrong by another atheist.

Why? Simply because it’s one’s opinion against another. However, not all atheists view moral values as relative, but many do. The atheist activist and president of American Atheists David Silverman says:

“THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARD. WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN ACTIONS….” “THE HARD ANSWER IS IT [MORAL DECISIONS] IS A MATTER OF OPINION”.

Atheist nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would also claim that “When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. For the latter is not self-evident… Christianity is a system”.

Nietzsche would go on to see that if God does not exist then “everything is permitted”.

Arguably, philosopher Julian Baggini captures this best: “If there is no single moral authority [i.e. if there is no God, then] we have to in some sense ‘create’ values for ourselves… that means that moral claims are not true or false in the same way as factual claims are…

moral claims are judgments [that] it is always possible for someone to disagree with… without saying something that is factually false…you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error”.

Secular writer for American Thinker John Steinrucken believes that atheists should do some self-reflection:

“Those who doubt the effect of religion on morality should seriously ask the question: Just what are the immutable moral laws of secularism? Be prepared to answer, if you are honest, that such laws simply do not exist!”.

Philosopher Michael Ruse concludes by claiming that our “sense” of morality is a byproduct of socio-biological evolution:

“In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate… Ethical codes work because they drive us to go against our selfish day to day impulses in favour of long-term group survival and harmony…

Furthermore, the way our biology forces our ends is by making us think that there is an objective, higher code to which we are all subject…

ETHICS IS A SHARED ILLUSION OF THE HUMAN RACE”.

6. Moral values and duties can only be grounded in God.

According to philosopher Richard Taylor: “to say that something is wrong because… it is forbidden by God, is…. perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong… even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable… The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone”.

2 Likes 1 Share

Christianity Etc › Re: 90 Atheist Quotes Every Christian & Atheist Need To Read by DoctorAlien(op): 9:49pm On Oct 08, 2017

4. Atheism is a hopeless worldview without purpose.

This was made quite clear in a debate the atheist activist Dan Barker had with a Christian apologist by the name of James White; Barker remarked: “There is no purpose to life, and we should not want there to be a purpose to life because if there was that would cheapen life”.

It is also evident that many atheists also feel the nihilistic force behind their philosophy, as in the words of the late William Provine:

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me.

THERE IS NO ULTIMATE FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS, NO ULTIMATE MEANING TO LIFE, AND NO FREE WILL FOR HUMANS, EITHER".

Provine would also say that “No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there any absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life”.

Further, after Richard Dawkins had penned his best seller The God Delusion he recounts some concerns forwarded to him by his readers; Dawkins recounts:

“A foreign publisher of my first book confessed the he could not sleep for three nights after reading it, so troubled was he by what he saw as its cold, bleak message. Others have asked me how I can bear to get up in the mornings.

A teacher from a distant country wrote to me reproachfully that a pupil had come to him in tears after reading the same book, because it had persuaded her that life was empty and purposeless. He advised her not to show the book to any of her friends, for fear of contaminating them with the same nihilistic pessimism”.

Yet despite such existential nihilism Dawkins tries to lessen its effects: “Presumably there is indeed no purpose in the ultimate fate of the cosmos, but do any of us really tie our life’s hopes to the ultimate fate of the cosmos anyway?”

If that’s not enough, the atheist chemist Peter Atkins goes as far as to call us “children of chaos,” and that “the deep structure of change is decay. At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe.”

Jon Casimir, as cited by Marsden, is forthright: “Here’s what I think. There is no meaning of life. The whole thing is a gyp, a never-ending corridor to nowhere. What is passed off as an all-important search is basically just a bunch of philosophers scrabbling about on their knees, trying to find a lost sock in the cosmic laundromat”.

Existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre goes on to articulate his nihilistic epiphany:

“I EXISTED LIKE A STONE, A PLANT, A MICROBE… I WAS JUST THINKING… THAT HERE WE ARE, ALL OF US, EATING AND DRINKING, TO PRESERVE OUR PRECIOUS EXISTENCE AND THERE’S NOTHING, NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR EXISTING”.

Similarly depressing is philosopher Thomas Nagel’s words; he explains that “It is often remarked that nothing we do now will matter in a million years. But if that is true, then by the same token, nothing that will be the case in a million years matters now. In particular, it does not matter now that in million years nothing we do now will matter”.

In another of his works Nagel believes that “Even if life as a whole is meaningless, perhaps that’s nothing to worry about. Perhaps we can recognise it and just go on as before”

2 Likes 1 Share

Christianity Etc › 90 Atheist Quotes Every Christian & Atheist Need To Read by DoctorAlien(op): 9:36pm On Oct 08, 2017*

By James Bishop

Source: http://reasonsforjesus.com/90-atheist-quotes-every-christian-atheist-need-to-read/

"What follows is a compilation of honest atheist quotes I’ve collected over the years from reading books, watching debates etc. I hope they, as well as the links provided, prove informative for all readers."

The quotes are divided into 23 batches, and I'm gonna be posting them gradually. You can click on the link above if you want to read all of them at once. The references for the quotes are also in the link above.

1. Not all atheists are bigots like Dawkins and Harris.

Atheist humanist philosopher Richard Norman believes that we need to work together as religious and non-religious people if progress is to ever take place in dialogue. In this case simple, inaccurate generalizations will not help:

“Humanism is more than atheism, it is about putting humanist beliefs and values into practice and trying to make the world a better place. And that is impossible unless we’re prepared to cooperate with others who share those values, including those for whom the values are inseparable from a religious commitment . . .

We have problems enough in the world. The threats of climate change, global poverty, war and repression and intolerance can never be countered unless we are prepared to work together on the basis of a shared humanity. Simplistic generalizations about religion don’t help”.

2. The question of God’s existence is no trivial matter.

Whether one believes in God or not, God’s existence is a crucial matter for it has huge ramifications to many, if not all, aspects of human life ranging from questions of value, morality, to purpose & meaning.

Richard Dawkins captures this:

“THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE EXISTS A SUPERNATURAL CREATOR, A GOD, IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE TO ANSWER”.

Widely read atheist existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre explains what he believes the consequences are if one rejects belief in a creator God; he claimed that “If God does not exist… man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon, either within or outside himself”.

3. Many atheists are critical of fundamentalist New Atheism.

Not much is new about the New Atheists other than their increased intensity of vitriol and anti-religious polemic. But such tactics don’t hold water with everyone, many atheists included. According to atheist Gary Wolf:

“The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who does not join them is an ally of the Taliban. But so far, their provocation has failed to take hold… I take this as good news. Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd.

If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn’t necessarily mean we’ve lost our convictions or our sanity. It simply reflects our deepest, democratic values. Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there’s always a chance we could turn out to be wrong”.

According to the “father of secular humanism” Paul Kurtz: “I think they are atheist fundamentalists. They’re anti-religious and they’re mean spirited, unfortunately. Now, they are very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good”.

Likewise philosopher Michael Ruse has been one of the most skeptical voices on New Atheists such as Dawkins. Ruse would say that:

“THE GOD DELUSION MAKES ME EMBARRASSED TO BE AN ATHEIST AND THE MCGRATHS SHOW WHY”.

Michael Shermer notes the existence of atheistic fundamentalism within science; he complains that “Since the turn of the millennium, a new militancy has arisen among religious sceptics… Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance”

Christianity Etc › Re: Christ’s Resurrection—four Accounts, One Reality by DoctorAlien(op): 7:38pm On Oct 08, 2017

Christianity Etc › Re: Agnostic Taylor Benge Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting Gives His Life To Christ by DoctorAlien(m): 10:35pm On Oct 07, 2017

hopefulLandlord:
and I say, again, this definition of yours came up long after the discussion has started; it reeks of dishonesty to change definitions in the middle of a discussion, its the same way you changed the definition of "Universe" the other day

Freewill is the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

that is my definition and it aligns with the definition you gave when I first quoted you on this thread

What I gave you is what I know, and have always known as freewill. You can choose to work with it, or you get yourself a definition of freewill that suits you.

2 Likes 1 Share

Christianity Etc › Re: Agnostic Taylor Benge Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting Gives His Life To Christ by DoctorAlien(m): 8:45pm On Oct 07, 2017

hopefulLandlord:
BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE'S FREEWILL OVERRODE THEIRS!!!!!!

DoctorAlien:
The freewill God gave man is like this:

"Option A: you can do the 10 commandments.

Option B: you can ignore God, worship idols, blaspheme and insult God, break His Sabbath, treat your parents with disrespect, kill people, lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, rape, maim, etc.

You can choose option A or B. I won't coerce your choice. I won't force you to do A, when you want to do B, and vice versa."

If you're saying that God should remove "kill people" from option B because people don't want to get killed by other people against their will, then:

1. God should remove "ignore God, worship idols, blaspheme aND insult God, break the Sabbath" from the option B because He doesn't want to be ignored against His wish(especially as He is the Creator), nor does He want His glory taken away as the Creator against His wish.
2. God should remove "treat your parents with disrespect" from option B because no parent wants to be treated with disrespect by their children against his/her wish.
3. God should remove "lie, cheat, rape, steal and maim" from option B because nobody wants these things done to him or her against their wish.
4. God should remove "commit adultery" from option B because at least some people don't want their partners cheating on them against their wish.

By the time God finishes removing all the items in option B for whatever reason you can come up with, you'd be left with only option A. But having only option A means there's really no freewill.

cc hopefulLandlord

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Agnostic Taylor Benge Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting Gives His Life To Christ by DoctorAlien(m): 8:38pm On Oct 07, 2017

hopefulLandlord:
You didn't read my post well

The victims should chose to dodge and chose to be hit!

I'm almost certain none of the victims went " Oh! someone is using his freewill to distribute hot lead, Oh look! a bullet is moving towards me, let me do what I want which is to take the bullet in my torso"

you keep looking from one side alone

What prevented them from choosing to dodge the bullet?

Christianity Etc › Re: Agnostic Taylor Benge Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting Gives His Life To Christ by DoctorAlien(m): 8:35pm On Oct 07, 2017

butterflyl1on:
The assumption caused the argument. An already existing assumption of what freewill ought to be according to atheism is what made one disagree with the other.

Stop being silly!

Exactly!

Christianity Etc › Re: Agnostic Taylor Benge Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting Gives His Life To Christ by DoctorAlien(m): 8:34pm On Oct 07, 2017

Deicide:
There was no assumption the argument was based on what doctoralien based freewill on and not on what Freewill really mean not until the Hypocrite like i really knew him to be changed it wouldn't say i was surprised though

This are just Assumption from your head the First part. the second part is just out of hatred he ignores you and it pains you to the core you need to learn to put your emotions in check

Trash, stop whining

Point out any change in my definition of freewill.

Christianity Etc › Re: Agnostic Taylor Benge Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting Gives His Life To Christ by DoctorAlien(m): 8:29pm On Oct 07, 2017

hopefulLandlord:
you gave this definition LONG into the discussion

in fact, the below was what you first gave as definition

this definition aligns with the one I gave and long after you brought a different one

I see no difference between "freewill is the freedom to do what you want" and "The Vegas shooter was created by God with freewill i.e. he could do anything he wanted". Do you see any?

I understand that you eventually talked about god in your first definition but it was more and example/buttressing rather than a definition

anyways, no need for back and forth anymore; if there's a god that values freewill as much as people say, then the freewill of one shouldn't override the freewill of another, if one chooses to shoot at me, I should have the choice to either dodge the bullet or chose to be hit by it, that to me, is what I call freewill and if it tilts to one side then something has to give

Thank you, I learnt somethings

Who said that you don't have the choice to dodge the bullet?

Freewill is the freedom to do what you want. However, even though you have the freedom to do what you want, you will eventually do ONLY THE THINGS YOU CAN DO. If you cannot dodge the bullet, sorry then. You also can never become God or avoid death.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Agnostic Taylor Benge Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting Gives His Life To Christ by DoctorAlien(m): 7:59pm On Oct 07, 2017

hopefulLandlord:
This is one of the reasons I don't like arguing with apologists, anything can be twisted on its head to get out of a tight corner, pulling definitions is one such tactic

Freewill: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

I can't remember giving any other definition of freewill on Nairaland apart from the one I gave above. Maybe you've been working with the wrong definition of the freewillwhich God gave man.

Doctor Alien, I remember when we debated sometime ago and you said whoever created the universe is god or something similar; I then showed that the statement is not necessarily true as something might've created the thing that created the universe; having said that and you're in a corner, you pulled a definition tactic by saying "anything that's created is part of the universe" or something similar (memory of something gets fuzzier with time) then I simply stopped arguing; I stopped not because I can't go forward in it but I usually sense when defensive mechanism is erected and doubling down becomes the order of the day

here you are now defining freewill in a way that also "helps" your case while I've been using the definition I gave up there which is actually more objective than your much more subjective one

You should've given this definition of yours from the beginning and I wouldn't have bothered at all

I had said before on this thread that freewill is the freedom to do what you want. But because there was the tendency of your misinterpreting that concise definition, I defined it in full, showing that freewill is in fact in relation to God who gave it. That's all.

You can hold me anywhere with this definition of freewill:

DoctorAlien:
The freewill God gave man is like this:

"Option A: you can do the 10 commandments.

Option B: you can ignore God, worship idols, blaspheme and insult God, break His Sabbath, treat your parents with disrespect, kill people, lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, rape, maim, etc.

You can choose option A or B. I won't coerce your choice. I won't force you to do A, when you want to do B, and vice versa."

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Agnostic Taylor Benge Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting Gives His Life To Christ by DoctorAlien(m): 7:15pm On Oct 07, 2017

The freewill God gave man is like this:

"Option A: you can do the 10 commandments.

Option B: you can ignore God, worship idols, blaspheme and insult God, break His Sabbath, treat your parents with disrespect, kill people, lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, rape, maim, etc.

You can choose option A or B. I won't coerce your choice. I won't force you to do A, when you want to do B, and vice versa."

If you're saying that God should remove "kill people" from option B because people don't want to get killed by other people against their will, then:

1. God should remove "ignore God, worship idols, blaspheme aND insult God, break the Sabbath" from the option B because He doesn't want to be ignored against His wish(especially as He is the Creator), nor does He want His glory taken away as the Creator against His wish.
2. God should remove "treat your parents with disrespect" from option B because no parent wants to be treated with disrespect by their children against his/her wish.
3. God should remove "lie, cheat, rape, steal and maim" from option B because nobody wants these things done to him or her against their wish.
4. God should remove "commit adultery" from option B because at least some people don't want their partners cheating on them against their wish.

By the time God finishes removing all the items in option B for whatever reason you can come up with, you'd be left with only option A. But having only option A means there's really no freewill.

cc hopefulLandlord

2 Likes 1 Share

Christianity Etc › Re: Agnostic Taylor Benge Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting Gives His Life To Christ by DoctorAlien(m): 6:35pm On Oct 07, 2017

hopefulLandlord:
like I said previously, you're looking at freewill from one single side (perpetrator's) whereas freewill in this situation has to cut both ways OR one freewill overrides the other's freewill which makes freewill one sided, those shot should be able to chose to be shot while the shooter chooses to shoot

your question is inconsequential

Freewill of A should not trump B, if it does then its not freewill

if this were a natural disaster then your freewill argument would've struck as it does not involve another's freewill but when 2 or more freewill comes into play, then something has got to give.........

You're confusing freewill as God gave it with maybe freedom/basic human rights as can be found in the Constitution. They're not the same. Freewill is not a rule about how human beings should relate to one another.

DoctorAlien:
The freewill God gave man is like this: you can choose to obey my commandments(which forbids killing a fellow human being). You can also choose not to obey my commandments(hence kill a fellow human being). But there are consequences for each choice.

Freewill is in relation to God who gave it.

Answer my question: how did God violate the freewill of the victims of the Vegas shooting?

Christianity Etc › Re: Agnostic Taylor Benge Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting Gives His Life To Christ by DoctorAlien(m): 6:27pm On Oct 07, 2017

butterflyl1on:
This is what he doesn't get. He feels he knows the real purpose behind Gods freewill and its workings.

He must be omniscient like God to know the workings of this freewill which God permitted.

He feels that my freewill shouldn't violate yours. It's like saying I don't want to die or I don't want to be in an accident but now find yourself in the car of a reckless driver and the drivers desire to be reckless now makes EVERYBODY outside his freewill to be involved in an accident.

Maybe the driver should have asked, " should I crash the bus "? Wait for a response from everyone, carry out a vote as in the case of majority takes the vote before crashing or not crashing the bus

He doesn't even understand that freewill is the freedom to choose to obey GOD or not, without God coercing the choice.

He thinks freewill is the freedom to choose what happens to you. In that case, the Vegas shooter can also choose not to receive the consequences of his actions.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Agnostic Taylor Benge Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting Gives His Life To Christ by DoctorAlien(m): 6:16pm On Oct 07, 2017

hopefulLandlord:
Freewill should go like this

Mr. A, I want to die, please can you kill me?

Mrs. B: I've always wanted to kill someone but I've never met a willing person, are you sure you want to die cuz I've got a gun here and I can kill you right away

Mr A: Yes, I want to die

Mrs B (Brings out a Smith & Wesson, then shoots Mr A in the temple)

That's freewill, one person's freewill should not override another person or a catch-22 develops

I don't understand why you're still not getting this philosophical issue

You failed to answer one question I asked you: how did God violate the freewill of the victims?

The freewill God gave man is like this: you can choose to obey my commandments(which forbids killing a fellow human being). You can also choose not to obey my commandments(hence kill a fellow human being). But there are consequences for each choice.

Freewill is in relation to God who gave it.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Agnostic Taylor Benge Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting Gives His Life To Christ by DoctorAlien(m): 6:00pm On Oct 07, 2017

hopefulLandlord:
Did they want to be killed by someone else's freewill?

Then let them not be killed by someone else's freewill. Who forced them to be killed by someone else's freewill?

freewill has to be choosing what you want to do and doing it

Freewill is the freedom to do what you want. However, it is not the freedom to choose what will come to you as a consequence of what you've done.

The shooter wanted to shoot people while the people shot didn't want to be shot! its very simple

Then let them not be shot nah. How did God violate the freewill of the victims?

not necessarily

many deaths are by choice, suicide for instance

Even if you don't commit suicide, you'll still die. You must die at some point.

Freewill has to cut both ways, all she did was point out the level of myopia your freewill post is exuding

No! not at all!!

The point is that the shooter's will to shoot people was granted while the guys shot didn't choose to be shot!, the people shot simply "chose" to enjoy the concert and go home, that's the choice they made
something has got to give, freewill has to be on a level playing field, if it tilts one way then its a catch-22 and a philosophical problem

I don't know how else I can break this down

Consider the person who chooses not to die. When he eventually dies, has his freewill been violated?

The people chose to enjoy the concert and go home. What prevented them from doing that?

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Agnostic Taylor Benge Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting Gives His Life To Christ by DoctorAlien(m): 5:30pm On Oct 07, 2017

hopefulLandlord:
actually she's not strawmaning you at all, you're the one that's caught in a catch-22 by looking at freewill through a one-sided and narrow lens

you said god couldn't stop it because of freewill, meaning god respected the shooter's freewill to do what he "wanted", the victims however didn't want to be shot by sniper bullets at the festival, their will not to be killed was not given the same respect as the shooter; same way a child molester has his will to do what he/she wanted to do, Rape a child, while his/her victim did not want to be molested, the molested isn't given the freewill while the molester is

Can you prove that the freewill of the victims of the Vegas shooting were violated by God? How did He violate their freewill?

Death in this world is not by choice. One can claim that he doesn't want to die just like everyone must die. But there is nothing he can do about it. If you say you don't want to be shot by sniper bullets, then don't be shot by sniper bullets. What is the role of anyone in the decision you've made?

Your argument is like one saying that his freewill has been violated just because he fell sick, when he didn't want to fall sick.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Interesting, Isn't It? by DoctorAlien(op): 5:03pm On Oct 07, 2017

Yes, it is!

Christianity Etc › Re: Agnostic Taylor Benge Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting Gives His Life To Christ by DoctorAlien(m): 4:50pm On Oct 07, 2017

OliviaPope:
You mean those that died wanted to die so he just let them, right? How compassionate.

Are you a first class graduate of Strawman Construction?

I mean, the Vegas shooter did what he wanted, of his own freewill, to do. The Vegas shooter was created by God with freewill i.e. he could do anything he wanted. But it is sad that the Vegas shooter chose to kill other people, when God had advised him "Thou shalt not kill." Exod. 20:13

Anyone who chooses to listen and obey what GOD said in Exodus 20:13 will never do what the Vegas shooter did.

2 Likes

Christianity Etc › Christ’s Resurrection—four Accounts, One Reality by DoctorAlien(op): 4:42pm On Oct 07, 2017

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/resurrection/christs-resurrection-four-accounts-one-reality/

Christ’s Resurrection led to a confusing day, as His followers raced around the city. Skeptics point to alleged contradictions to prove Scripture wrong. Can the four Gospels be reconciled?

The Gospels can’t keep their stories straight! How many women went to the tomb and when did they leave? How many angels visited the tomb? Did Jesus appear to all the women or just Mary Magdalene?

Actual contradictions in the Resurrection reports would raise serious concerns for Christianity. If these discrepancies are legitimate, they would be a strike against the preservation of Scripture, but errors would not prove anything against the truth of the Lord’s Resurrection or the infallible original records. Nevertheless, Christians need not worry. These accounts can be reconciled. Indeed, when we put all the pieces together, the wonder of the Resurrection shines out in even greater glory.

Early Morning
When did the women go to the tomb, and how many went?

The Gospels refer to different times and name different women who arrived at the tomb. Matthew states that “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” came to the tomb as it “began to dawn” (Matthew 28:1). Mark adds Salome to the group and claims that they came “very early in the morning” (Mark 16:1–2). Luke agrees that it was “very early in the morning” and names “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women” as those who came to the tomb (Luke 24:1, 24:10). John wrote that “Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark” (John 20:1).

Regarding the timing of the women’s trip, the sticky point is John’s claim that they went to the tomb “while it was still dark” (John 20:1). Was it very early in the morning at dawn, or was it still dark? One plausible solution is that the phrases used in the Gospels all refer to the same general time. Much of the sky is still dark when the day begins to dawn very early in the morning.

Perhaps a better solution is that John may have described when the women initially left for the tomb, while the other Gospels described when the women arrived. If they lodged in Bethany, as they had done earlier in the week, then the women would need to travel about two miles to reach the burial site (John 11:18), plenty of time for the sun to rise.

Resolving the differences in the number of women listed is straightforward. At least five women went to the tomb, since Luke names three of them and then says “other women” went too (at least two). Notice that Matthew does not say that only two women were there. Mark does not say only three women were there. They simply focus on the women they name. Although John names only Mary Magdalene, he is clearly aware that she was not alone. Reporting to Peter and John, she said, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him” (John 20:2, italics added).

Was the tomb already open, and how many angels appeared?

Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2, and John 20:1 state outright that the stone had been rolled away from the tomb prior to the women’s arrival. Matthew’s wording has caused some consternation. After writing about the women going to the tomb he writes, “And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it” (Matthew 28:2). Although this description follows his mention of the women heading to the tomb, Matthew does not claim that this event occurred as the women arrived. Instead, he provides helpful details about what had already happened.

The angelic appearances have also drawn criticism. Was there one angel at the tomb, as described in Matthew 28:2–7 and Mark 16:5–7, or two angels, as stated in Luke 24:4–7 and John 20:12? This minor difficulty is easily explained. There were two angels. Neither Matthew nor Mark claims that only one angel was at the tomb. The complete number does not appear in their accounts. It is not a problem that Mark and Luke call the angels “men,” since angels frequently appeared in the form of men and were identified as such elsewhere (Genesis 18:1–2; Daniel 9:21).

Order of Appearances

The alleged contradictions already mentioned are relatively easy to reconcile, but resolving the diverse accounts given in the four Gospels and 1 Corinthians 15:5–8 concerning the post-Resurrection appearances is more difficult. None of these accounts mentions all of the Lord’s appearances, so the information must be pieced together from all five sources.

When and where did each woman see Jesus?

This is the most complex issue concerning the reporting of appearances.1 Matthew asserts that the women visited the tomb and saw an angel. While they were on the way to tell the disciples, Jesus appeared to them. There would be no difficulty here except that John has Mary Magdalene individually returning from the tomb to report to Peter and John that the body had been taken away. Only after her return to the tomb with the two disciples is she granted the privilege of being the first to see the risen Savior. So how can both accounts of women seeing Jesus be accurate? Many Gospel harmonies have been written, and there are a handful of plausible solutions. I believe the following scenario makes the best sense of the available data (click on the link at the beginning of this post to see map of Resurrection Day events).

As mentioned above, at least five women set out for the tomb in the early morning, probably from Bethany. As they neared the tomb, they noticed the stone had been removed. Apparently, Mary Magdalene left the other women to alert Peter and John. Based on her comment about not knowing the location of the Lord’s body, it seems that she was not among the women who encountered the angels at the tomb.

Meanwhile, the other women entered the tomb and encountered the angels. One of the angels proclaimed that the Lord had risen, and then “the women went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word” (Matthew 28:8–9).

So how could Jesus first appear to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9) and then to the other women? As they headed for the tomb, why didn’t Mary, Peter, and John cross paths with the other women who were going to tell the disciples?

The key to resolving these dilemmas is to understand that Peter and John were probably not staying in the same place as the other disciples. Remember, although all the disciples “forsook Him and fled” at His arrest (Matthew 26:56), Peter and John were brave enough to enter Jerusalem to find out what would happen to Jesus (John 18:15). Of course, Peter fled in shame at the rooster’s crow (Matthew 26:75), but John was present at the Cross (John 19:26). At some point, John and Peter met up, and they were likely staying together in Jerusalem when Mary Magdalene came to the door on Sunday morning.

Where were the other disciples, then? We cannot be certain, but they may well have stayed in Bethany. After all, this is where Jesus often stayed on trips to Jerusalem, and Bethany was on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives (Mark 11:1), the location of Christ’s arrest.

If these suppositions are correct, then all of the difficulties are resolved nicely. Mary Magdalene first left the tomb and entered nearby Jerusalem to get Peter and John. During that time, the other women encountered the angels and then left the tomb to set out on the two-mile trip to Bethany to tell the other disciples. They may have stopped along the way to tell Clopas and an unnamed disciple about the morning’s events (Luke 24:22–24), or they may have split up so that a couple of them could inform these men. In all likelihood, “the wife of Clopas” was among these women (John 19:25).

Meanwhile, Peter, John, and Mary raced to the tomb. The men entered the tomb, saw the grave clothes, and then left. Mary stayed behind, weeping outside the tomb. When she looked into the tomb, she saw two angels (John 20:12), and after explaining her grief to them, she turned around and saw the Savior (John 20:16). After Mary departed to tell Peter and John about seeing the risen Lord, Jesus appeared to the other women who were on their way to Bethany (Matthew 28:9).

Three More Appearances on Sunday

The remaining appearances of Christ on that day are much easier to follow. Luke wrote about Clopas and a companion meeting the Lord while they walked from Jerusalem to Emmaus. They did not recognize Him until He broke bread with them (Luke 24:30–31).

They immediately returned to Jerusalem to share the good news with the disciples, who were gathered together without Thomas (John 20:19–24). Upon their arrival, they were told by the disciples that Jesus had appeared to Simon Peter (Luke 24:34; see also 1 Corinthians 15:5). It is unclear whether Peter saw Jesus before the two disciples saw Him on the road to Emmaus.

As they shared exciting details about the day’s events, Jesus appeared to the whole group. At first they were frightened, but the Lord showed them His scars and then ate some broiled fish and honeycomb (Luke 24:40–43).

Remaining Appearances

Jesus continued to appear to people over a forty-day period (Acts 1:3). Eight days after His Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the disciples again, and this time Thomas was present (John 20:24–29).

Over the next few weeks Jesus appeared to seven disciples at the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1–2). While still in Galilee, the disciples also saw Jesus on a hillside (Matthew 28:16–17). This may have been the event Paul mentioned where Jesus appeared to over 500 people at once (1 Corinthians 15:6). After that, Jesus was seen by His half-brother James, the son of Mary and Joseph (1 Corinthians 15:7).

The disciples returned to Jerusalem, where Jesus appeared to them a final time. He delivered the Great Commission, led them out to Bethany at the Mount of Olives, and ascended into heaven (Luke 24:50–51; Acts 1:9–11).2

Conclusion

Luke declared that after Jesus suffered and died on the Cross, He showed Himself alive “by many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3). Skeptics will surely continue to question Scripture and neglect reasonable solutions to the dilemmas they propose. It’s hard for them to be open-minded about sensible answers because Christ’s Resurrection, if true, is a miracle that demonstrates Jesus is Lord—a truth contrary to their secular worldview, which rejects miracles and the supernatural. No matter how many objections unbelievers raise, Christians can be confident there are no contradictions in the Word of God.

Christianity Etc › Re: Evolution- Geological Record Does Not Support Evolution. by DoctorAlien(m): 3:39pm On Oct 07, 2017

Below is what Charles Darwin, who put forth the theory of evolution by natural selection, believed at the time he put forth the theory.

"Scientists" have since been battling to defend Darwin’s theory.

2 Likes 1 Share

Christianity Etc › Re: Climbing The “ladder Of Life” In The Grand Canyon by DoctorAlien(op): 3:30pm On Oct 07, 2017

Christianity Etc › Re: Agnostic Taylor Benge Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting Gives His Life To Christ by DoctorAlien(m): 3:27pm On Oct 07, 2017

Tahra:
Why is God unable to stop things like this from happening?

Freewill, friend. Freewill.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Where Was God??? by DoctorAlien(m): 12:44pm On Oct 07, 2017

Babatunde360:
You must be a real psycho to believe the only way to do the right thing is with the threat of eternal damnation ,So if you didn't believe in god you will go around killing people.And the fact that someone is an Atheist doesn't mean the person lacks empathy or other basic human emotions it just means the person isn't gullible enough to believe in things like unicorn, santa claus ,god, big foot ,abominable snow man,kraken ,godzilla and what ever imaginary things hang out together

First things first: from the atheist's point of view, what is the right thing, which everybody should do? And who said that such a thing is the right thing for everybody to do? Is the Vegas shooting wrong? If yes, who said so?

There is no gainsaying the fact that no one would do anything he or she likes if he/she really realizes that the record of his/her actions are being kept, and that he/she would surely receive rewards for whatever he/she has done.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Where Was God??? by DoctorAlien(m): 11:14pm On Oct 06, 2017*

MaziOmenuko:
Oga Alien, did Jesus say that whoever believes in him shall not die but have everlasting life?

These are the verses, I believe, you're talking about:

"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" John 11:25-26

Notice that Jesus said to Martha that if anybody believes(not believed) in Him, though the person were dead, he shall live yet. Therefore, Jesus is saying that though a person were dead, if the person BELIEVES (present tense) in Him, the person shall yet live. The fact that the Jesus used the word "believes" is very important because it cancels the idea that Jesus could be talking about those who believed in Him before they died, and not those who are yet to believe in Him. If Jesus was talking about those believed in Him before they died, the sentence would have been "he that believed in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live..." That raises the question: can a dead man believe in Jesus? The only way that could make sense is if what Jesus really sees as death is not physical death we know. And that is really the case! To Jesus, the physical death we know is but a sleep, aND someone can be awakeNed out of it. That was why He told His disciples that their friend Lazarus was was asleep. All through the Bible, death is represented as sleep. (see also Daniel 12:2)

What then does Jesus see as really death? The destruction/annihilation that awaits those would choose not to believe in Him. This is also called the second death (Revelation 21: cool

. (This is also why Jesus made the statement "leave the dead to bury their dead", the dead here being those who would eventually encounter the second death because they had decided not to follow Jesus.) This second death is never likened to sleep in the Bible, and anyone who experiences it can never be recovered from it. To Jesus, this is really death, and anyone who is going to experience it is dead(already)! But if any man moves from not believing in Jesus to believing in Him, the person has moved from being dead to being alive. (see John 11:25 again). You understand this more when you consider Jesus' words in John 5:24 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

Armed with this view which Jesus had of death, it is not hard to see what Jesus meant when He said in John 11:26 that "whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

Did he proclaim after his death that all powers has been given unto him in heaven and in earth? Did he promise his followers that they shall trample upon serpents and scorpions and shall not be harmed? With your knowledge of basic bible, did Jesus promise his followers all that I said or am I quoting the quoran? I get it, you have already bought the school of thought that Christians can die like all unbelievers which is okk by me.

Yes, Jesus said all those and more. However, the same Jesus told us these: "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." Matt. 24:9 But even though they kill us, we will live again when Christ returns.

Jesus also told us that we would trample upon serpents and scorpions and shall not be harmed. The promise is not a license to us to go in search of serpents and scorpions to step on. Instead it means that in our walk with Him, we would come close to danger and harm, but we will be protected. This promise is having literal fulfillment all over the world in the lives of God’s children.

When He decides that work of any of His child is done on earth, God puts that person to rest. God can allow His child die a martyr's death, or to die a peaceful death. But whatever happens, Jesus will raise His children up when He returns.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: A Letter To God. by DoctorAlien(m): 9:33pm On Oct 06, 2017

A Reply From GOD:

Read the Bible, my son. The answers to your questions are there.

8 Likes 3 Shares

Christianity Etc › Re: Where Was God??? by DoctorAlien(m): 8:54pm On Oct 06, 2017

MaziOmenuko:
Oga, let us assume that everyone killed in Vegas shooting were all atheists and unbelievers.

What of the incidence at a church in uyo where the church building collapsed and more than 32 Christians were crushed to death? Should we say that the beams of that church carefully chose it's victims and fell on the sinners among them? What of the building collapse of Psr TB Joshua where more than 80 Christians lost their lives? What of the Boko haram bomb blast at madala, Niger State where over 20 lives were lost? Let's still asume those guys were not Christians. What of the incidence at Adamawa dealer life where boko haram attached members if a church at a night vigil and killed them all? Do you need more examples to know that your claim is flawed?

If after Jesus death, the devil is still killing Christians like point and kill fish pepersoip, then something is wrong somewhere.

But Jesus did not promise us that we would no longer die in this world. You've shown that you lack even basic knowledge of the Bible. Jesus Himself told us that we would be persecuted, and even killed in this world. Jesus died so we can live forever IN THE WORLD TO COME, NOT IN THIS WICKED WORLD.

Even though we die, when Jesus comes back, we would live again.

Christianity Etc › Re: Where Was God??? by DoctorAlien(m): 8:03pm On Oct 06, 2017*

The Vegas shooting brings us face to face with the sad reality of atheism. From the atheist's point of view, there is no hope for justice for the people whose lives were brutally and unjustly terminated. A true atheist has no basis on which to even condemn the shooting as wrong. Perhaps Darwin would tell us that nature, through the Vegas shooting, just weeded out those who are not fit enough from the human species? Who knows?

Whenever men abandoned the Law of GOD, every kind of evil followed. Chaos, disasters, violence, suffering and pain become the order of the day. Why won't things like the Vegas shooting, or even worse, happen when men walk about believing that God does not exist, and that God's law as reveaeld in the Bible is not binding on them, and that they're not accountable to anyone, nor would they get any reward for what they did on this earth? It happened just before the flood. It is happening again.

Indeed, the Bible predicted it. Expect it to get worse and worse until Christ returns to end this wicked system of things.

Christianity Etc › Re: To The Theist In The House : Why Do You Think God Created The Universe? by DoctorAlien(m): 8:10pm On Oct 05, 2017

Here's why GOD created the universe:

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Revelation 4:11 KJV

5 Likes 2 Shares

Christianity Etc › Re: Interesting, Isn't It? by DoctorAlien(op): 6:41pm On Oct 05, 2017

Interesting

Christianity Etc › Re: Personhood And Transcendency (personal God Outside Time) by DoctorAlien(m): 1:28pm On Oct 05, 2017*

I admit that my human, finite mind cannot grasp the whole of reality, especially as it concerns GOD. However, I'm gonna point out some things.

First, cartoons(eg. Tom & Jerry) can also be watched like movies. We all know that cartoons are motion pictures i.e. an episode of Tom & Jerry is simply a series of pictures in rapid succession that creates an illusion of motion. Tom and Jerry do not exist. A movie, for what it's worth, is no different from Tom & Jerry. Any movie or video watched on a screen can be considered as a succession of images. The natural thing to do when you see a movie is to assume that it is simply a succession of finely painted color images. Therefore, to me, saying that we are not within the space and time of the movie raises the question: who is within the space and time of the movie? Indeed, does the movie have space and time? Tom & Jerry are not really doing action in the cartoon. Instead, pictures depicting Tom & Jerry in distinct positions follow themselves in rapid succession, and it creates an illusion of motion. The same goes for any movie. The characters aren't really doing action: instead, pictures of the characters in different, distinct positions following themselves in rapid succession create an illusion of action, which otherwise does not exist.

Second, you seem to assume that there are different spaces and times for different dimensions of existence, hence your ascribing space and time to the movie. You also assume that time can be paused. That raises the question: what is time? Are there different times in different dimensions? Can time be paused? When you touch your screen, and the movie timer stops maybe at "00:32:17", has time really stopped? I believe that time exists only in the mind, and thus cannot be stopped or paused. Imagine that all the clocks and watches and timepieces on this earth are destroyed, so that there is nothing on earth with which to count time: in that case, has time been paused? If no, why?

I have a definition of time that goes like this: time is the abstract phenomenon which can only be expressed as the immaterial difference between two states(of things). I also believe that time is the same everywhere, both in this universe and outside of this universe.

On whether GOD can perform any action in the universe even though He exists outside of it, I say He must necessarily be able to do so for Him to be omnipotent.

3 Likes 2 Shares

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 (of 137 pages)